Many play ground arguments begin with this simple question: who is smarter, boys or girls? This argument develops further with age. Boys use the fact that males fill most high-level jobs and girls counter this with the fact that many more females attend and graduate from college. So what is the answer? Who is smarter?
Neither girls nor boys can be considered inherently smarter than the other; however, the way each sex learns needs to be taken into account. The concept of single-sex classrooms, grades, and even entire schools is relatively new, but interest in the idea is rapidly increasing. According to The Toccoa Record, there were only 12 public schools in the United States that offered single-sex classrooms in 2002. That number increased to more than 360 at the beginning of the 2007-08 school year with Cleveland, Detroit, Albany, Philadelphia, Dallas and Nashville all featuring gender-segregated classrooms in their school systems.
Toccoa, GA is about to join this list of cities with Stephens County Middle School segregating its seventh grade class by gender next year. Principal Tony Crunkleton said that the grade will be divided into three teams, one will be all girls, one will be all boys and the third will be coed. Even within the coed team, classes will be gender segregated. Although student response to this concept has not been very enthusiastic, Crunkleton said that he has received nothing but positive feedback from parents.
The fact is that boys and girls learn differently. A study conducted by Harriet Hanlon and the Virginia Institute and State University examined the brain activity of 224 girls and 284 boys ranging in age form 2 months to 16 years old. Results showed that the development patterns of language, spatial memory, motor coordination and social skills develop in a different order for girls and boys. By recognizing these differences, schools have the opportunity to raise low tests scores, increase graduation rates and possibly reduce teen pregnancies. In a Los Angeles Times blog, Julie Ancis, a professor in the College of Education at Georgia State University, said that when boys and girls are separated, each group performs better in school and is more likely to go to college. The idea is that when you play off of individual strengths students will perform better and separating students by gender is an easy way to do this.
Since this is a fairly new concept, I am interested to see what the response is in Stephens County. Personally I would not be happy if I were forced to attend a gender-segregated school. Many of the reasons I chose not to attend an all girls’ college reflect the social, “real world” skills that these children will be missing out on. Girls and boys need to be able to learn with and learn from each other, which includes daily interactions. There are very few gender-segregated jobs now so both girls and boys need to learn how to work with each other in school so they can be prepared for the job market.
I agree that if we just continue in the status quo, test scores, graduation rates and teen pregnancies will not get better but I believe the teaching skills of teachers should be adapted to the new generation of student emerging rather than separating sexes. Too many social and interactive skills would be lost by stripping students of peers of the opposite sex. You can separate schools but you can’t separate life.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Segregation Save Us All
Let me play devils advocate one last time. There is a growing controversy in both the public and private sectors of the national schooling system concerning segregation. No, we are not talking about racism. Instead, our topic today is about gender segregation. In less confusing terminology, the separation of boys and girls in school.
There have several studies and both in favor and against this seemingly archaic system. I began this study against the thought of single-sex classes; when I looked at the research I saw a different picture than I had imagined. For instance, take this experiment, posted in May 2007 on www.singlesexschools.org
“Researchers at Stetson University have completed a three-year pilot project comparing single-sex classrooms with coed classrooms at Woodward Avenue Elementary School, a nearby neighborhood public school. For example, students in the 4th grade at Woodward were assigned either to single-sex or coed classrooms. All relevant parameters were matched: the class sizes were all the same, the demographics were the same, all teachers had the same training in what works and what doesn't work, etc. On the FCAT (Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test), here were the results:
Percentage of students scoring proficient on the FCAT
• boys in coed classes: 37% scored proficient
• girls in coed classes: 59% scored proficient
• girls in single-sex classes: 75% scored proficient
• boys in single-sex classes: 86% scored proficient.”
Question: What is the purpose of early schooling? Could it be to teach students academic skills such as math, reading, writing, science, art, history, etc? If the answer is yes, then why would students not be given the highest opportunities and the best academic environments?
If their abilities rise by boys and girls by 38 and 27%, then why choose coed? One of the largest arguments against single-sex class rooms is the notion of social ineptitude. Proponents of coed schooling often state that children who go to a single-sex school will inevitably end up socially clumsy in regard to the opposite sex, and that this clumsiness will cause them to be less happy throughout their pathetic lives. With this argument, I must humbly disagree. The fact is, I have found absolutely no evidence whatsoever that children become socially awkward through alternative forms of schooling. Therefore, I believe that single-sex schools could be a viable way to increase children’s learning. This just might be the caffein shot our school system needs.
Let them be children for a few more years
“Right. Just imagine, we'll have to wash our hair every night. We'll have to sleep on rollers til our scalps bleed. Then we'll have to get up at six every morning for the comb out. Your lungs will be lined with hairspray. Then you need all this equipment to push up the tits and blitz the zits and spray the pits! Then you stagger into class and you look perfect but you're exhausted, you're too tired to even think but that's okay the teachers they won't call on you anyway, also you don't want to be smarter than the boys,” says Verena Von Stefan, a character from the 1998 film All I Wanna Do.
All I Wanna Do is a prime example of one of the cons associated with co-education. Once all girls’ schools merged with boys, more time would be spent on trying to impress a boy than actually learning in the classroom. This is why co-education has been one of the most debated issues in the news recently.
Eliminating gender bias was one of the main reasons that people in the United States pushed for boys and girls schools to integrate early on. Although this is a good reason, there is more evidence to support the assumption that integrating actually put more emphasis on gender bias and less time eliminating it.
The plain truth is that boys and girls learn in different ways. Research shows that a girl's brain is different from a boy's brain. One size does not fit all. Co-education does not work for every child. Hence, the move to revisit the traditional notion of educating the sexes separately.
I am not saying that we should move back to the ideas that men and women hold the more traditional roles in society. For example, that girls should be nurses and teachers. Or that boys should be pilots and engineers, and so on. No, I view single sex education as an opportunity to capitalize on the learning differences inherent in boys and girls.
The social pressures are gentler. A child can grow at his or her own pace. Gender stereotypes are not a major factor and faculty at single sex schools understand how their students learn. They adapt their teaching styles to those specific needs.
According to About.com, “Private single sex schools are flourishing once again because parents have realized that learning is probably more important than being properly socialized.”
The exact opposite has been said when exploring the idea with students at Piedmont College who grew up in a co-educational society. Valarie Garrin, a business major at Piedmont, says, “Yes, there may be higher graduation rate or greater chance of college enrollment but what about developing social skills. The skills are pertinent in life when it comes to living in the ‘real world’ and how can one truly get those if they are not exposed to the opposite gender until they are in their late teens and early twenties?”
While this can be true, if a person would go sit in a public school that was co-educational, they would probably see boys fighting over a girlfriend, girls in mini skirts trying to impress a boy or girls walking down the hall pregnant at age 15. In no way am I advocating that students should be split because they are having sex or drinking alcohol. This could be done at any school, single sex or co-educational.
I feel strongly that children are subjected to an avalanche of pressures from every quarter to become adults before they are ready to do so. They grow up too quickly. Let them be children for a few more years. Single sex education with its gentler, more controlled social outlets is just the ticket for allowing this to happen while benefiting the educational learning differences between boys and girls at the same time.
All I Wanna Do is a prime example of one of the cons associated with co-education. Once all girls’ schools merged with boys, more time would be spent on trying to impress a boy than actually learning in the classroom. This is why co-education has been one of the most debated issues in the news recently.
Eliminating gender bias was one of the main reasons that people in the United States pushed for boys and girls schools to integrate early on. Although this is a good reason, there is more evidence to support the assumption that integrating actually put more emphasis on gender bias and less time eliminating it.
The plain truth is that boys and girls learn in different ways. Research shows that a girl's brain is different from a boy's brain. One size does not fit all. Co-education does not work for every child. Hence, the move to revisit the traditional notion of educating the sexes separately.
I am not saying that we should move back to the ideas that men and women hold the more traditional roles in society. For example, that girls should be nurses and teachers. Or that boys should be pilots and engineers, and so on. No, I view single sex education as an opportunity to capitalize on the learning differences inherent in boys and girls.
The social pressures are gentler. A child can grow at his or her own pace. Gender stereotypes are not a major factor and faculty at single sex schools understand how their students learn. They adapt their teaching styles to those specific needs.
According to About.com, “Private single sex schools are flourishing once again because parents have realized that learning is probably more important than being properly socialized.”
The exact opposite has been said when exploring the idea with students at Piedmont College who grew up in a co-educational society. Valarie Garrin, a business major at Piedmont, says, “Yes, there may be higher graduation rate or greater chance of college enrollment but what about developing social skills. The skills are pertinent in life when it comes to living in the ‘real world’ and how can one truly get those if they are not exposed to the opposite gender until they are in their late teens and early twenties?”
While this can be true, if a person would go sit in a public school that was co-educational, they would probably see boys fighting over a girlfriend, girls in mini skirts trying to impress a boy or girls walking down the hall pregnant at age 15. In no way am I advocating that students should be split because they are having sex or drinking alcohol. This could be done at any school, single sex or co-educational.
I feel strongly that children are subjected to an avalanche of pressures from every quarter to become adults before they are ready to do so. They grow up too quickly. Let them be children for a few more years. Single sex education with its gentler, more controlled social outlets is just the ticket for allowing this to happen while benefiting the educational learning differences between boys and girls at the same time.
Why Change it if Nothing is Wrong?
Everyday when people turn on the television or open a newspaper they hear or read about public schools in
Same sex schools are schools that segregate class by gender in order for them to learn better. People are doing research over this new trend everyday to see if it will work. In a research summary written by Thomas Spielhofer, Lisa ODonnell, Tom Benton, Sandie Schagen and Ian Schagen, they explain the advantages of this new trend. In the review it says, “Girls were said to be more confident in a single-sex environment, and to gain more attention from teachers. However, it was also claimed that single-sex classes can help underachieving boys.” Most of the research shows positive signs like this, but what are the negative points?
There are some big drawbacks to same sex schools that many people are overlooking. Most vocational classes are going to be effected along with the fine arts education the students receive. In the all boys school there is likely not going to be enough interest to have theatre and other fine arts classes such as chorus. So they will not have the opportunity to take these classes if the segregation happened. In high school my favorite classes were theatre and theatre related classes. It was during these classes I actually figured out what I wanted to major in when I got to college. I don’t know what high school would have been like or where I would been now if these weren’t available. Another drawback is girls will not be offered the chance to take Auto Mechanics and other such courses because there will likely not be enough students that want to take it.
Mark Hoban, a Piedmont freshman, said, “I do not think I would have done well in a segregated school. Most of the time girls in the classroom ask more questions. They are usually questions I would be to embarrassed to ask so I learn from the answers the teachers give them. Most guys would not ask questions in order to stay or look ‘cool’.”
There are many different opinions about same sex schools, but why are we worried about them? According to the Georgia Department of Education the graduation rate for
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Male - (Male - Female)- Female or (Male - Male) - (Female - Female)?
In a time when discrimination against a specific sex is considered wrong, the idea of single-gender education seems to be the option of choice for most schools. It caters to the needs of both sex of child, male and female. A male-only school allows young boys to be rambunctious at no expense to female classmates who sometimes have the tendency to be demure at an elementary school age. Statistics show that female elementary-age students mature faster physically and mentally as well. By placing both genders in the same educational environment, the school system is forcing both of sexes to fit into the standards of the opposite. The male students who are in single-gender schools aren’t concerned with impressing female students, therefore, female students aren’t distracted by the boys’ often hopeless attempts at making good impressions.
However, with no exposure to the other sex, this makes socializing difficult when the two are finally interspersed in later years. The method of separating students during lower grades and bringing them back together in the higher ones poses a problem when selecting a grade level to fit the student. With this method in place, there is a higher chance of finding younger females in the higher grades and younger males in the lower grades, thus dissecting age groups and eliminating a sense of unity between similar age levels. In the end, the single-gender education system is best. By placing females in higher grades or in advanced classes, the problem is ultimately fixed. Various studies done also show that elementary age schooling is the most important of all 12 years. The process is shown to do more good than harm with very few, easily fixed side-effects. Separating students is a progressive and effective process that school systems should adopt in order to better educate children and young adults.
However, with no exposure to the other sex, this makes socializing difficult when the two are finally interspersed in later years. The method of separating students during lower grades and bringing them back together in the higher ones poses a problem when selecting a grade level to fit the student. With this method in place, there is a higher chance of finding younger females in the higher grades and younger males in the lower grades, thus dissecting age groups and eliminating a sense of unity between similar age levels. In the end, the single-gender education system is best. By placing females in higher grades or in advanced classes, the problem is ultimately fixed. Various studies done also show that elementary age schooling is the most important of all 12 years. The process is shown to do more good than harm with very few, easily fixed side-effects. Separating students is a progressive and effective process that school systems should adopt in order to better educate children and young adults.
Single gender education might be the way forward but coed interaction is important
According to a study into single sex education vs. coed led by Dr Leonard Sax from Stetson University, FL the performance of boys in single-sex classrooms was higher compared to those in coed classes. Researchers at Stetson University completed a three year pilot at a nearby public elementary school, class sizes, demographics and teacher training were all kept the same the only thing that changed was the gender mix in the classrooms. Results were surprising.
In FCAT test, (Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test) boys in coed classes scored only 37% proficient compared to 87% proficient in boys who were in single sex classroom environments. The proficiency of girls in the test also accelerated when they were in single sex classrooms but the difference wasn’t as great as it was in boys. This definitely supports the theory that children learn more effectively in a single sex environment.
Theories that follow this argument conclude that coed classrooms actually encourage gender stereotypes and that single gender classrooms break down these stereotypes, in particular with children’s attitudes toward their subject preferences. Andrew Hunter principal of Merchiston Castle School in Edinburgh, UK agrees with this point of view, “There is a subtle and invidious pressure towards gender stereotyping in mixed schools. Girls tend to be cautious about going into subjects or activities which are thought of as essentially boys' things, but in boys' schools boys feel free to be themselves and develop, to follow their interests and talents in what might be regarded as non-macho pursuits: music, arts, and drama.”
AAUW an organization that aims to advance equity for women and girls believes that single gender education however can leave girls behind, reinforce problematic stereotypes and increase discrimination. AAUW’s website reads, “Even where programs are established for both boys and girls separately, they have tended to be distinctly unequal, with fewer resources allocated for girls programs.”
In conclusion I think that there is no doubt that single gender education has definitely been proven to have significant, positive effects on the academic abilities of both girls and boys but in particular boys. With this it is easy to see why parents, teachers, schools and government policies might be more geared towards implementing single gender policies. However in my opinion, interaction and communication between genders is surely a vital importance of a child’s education and is something necessary to success in relationships, career and life. Therefore I believe that any single gender education policies enforced need to make sure that the children they concern still get, healthy, vital interaction with the opposite sex.
In FCAT test, (Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test) boys in coed classes scored only 37% proficient compared to 87% proficient in boys who were in single sex classroom environments. The proficiency of girls in the test also accelerated when they were in single sex classrooms but the difference wasn’t as great as it was in boys. This definitely supports the theory that children learn more effectively in a single sex environment.
Theories that follow this argument conclude that coed classrooms actually encourage gender stereotypes and that single gender classrooms break down these stereotypes, in particular with children’s attitudes toward their subject preferences. Andrew Hunter principal of Merchiston Castle School in Edinburgh, UK agrees with this point of view, “There is a subtle and invidious pressure towards gender stereotyping in mixed schools. Girls tend to be cautious about going into subjects or activities which are thought of as essentially boys' things, but in boys' schools boys feel free to be themselves and develop, to follow their interests and talents in what might be regarded as non-macho pursuits: music, arts, and drama.”
AAUW an organization that aims to advance equity for women and girls believes that single gender education however can leave girls behind, reinforce problematic stereotypes and increase discrimination. AAUW’s website reads, “Even where programs are established for both boys and girls separately, they have tended to be distinctly unequal, with fewer resources allocated for girls programs.”
In conclusion I think that there is no doubt that single gender education has definitely been proven to have significant, positive effects on the academic abilities of both girls and boys but in particular boys. With this it is easy to see why parents, teachers, schools and government policies might be more geared towards implementing single gender policies. However in my opinion, interaction and communication between genders is surely a vital importance of a child’s education and is something necessary to success in relationships, career and life. Therefore I believe that any single gender education policies enforced need to make sure that the children they concern still get, healthy, vital interaction with the opposite sex.
Your Choice
It is said that little research has been done but same-sex schools are proving more beneficial for students. The females are gaining a more commanding role instead of sheepishly replying in coeducational surroundings. In co-ed schools males and females are implicit gender roles. Certain areas such as fine arts are considered more of a female hobby and males should be more interested in sports. The gender expectations keep females out of the wood shop and males out of the choral department. According to the Education Bug, a source for educational articles, having a same-sex environment helps the classroom behavior. Girls mature faster than boys therefore the classroom antics reduce which results in a more focused learning environment. Having same-sex schools is also beneficial because it takes the pressure off of dating within the school. No longer will girls chase after boys just to say they have a boyfriend.
Since boys and girls have different learning styles a co-ed environment produces more variety in learning. Having a single-sex environment limits the social interaction between the sexes. In order to be socially adept, the genders need to collide. A co-educational school is like a small community or network where students know one another and relate to each others lives. The male and female gender interaction provides an outlet for networking with the opposite sex before they enter the real world and are consumed by co-ed society. A fear presented by same-sex schools is that the students will explore their own sex and become homosexual. But in co-ed schools if a student were homosexual students could project a homophobic vibe upon the person.
In my opinion, the choice of same-sex or co-ed it is ultimately a parent’s choice to decide what is right for their child. Both sides have their benefits and pitfalls. An education should be tailored to the person not the person to the education. I would think that educational benefits supersede the need for social interaction that could be gotten at home. I would want my child to be focused and attentive in class, not passing notes to a boy or suppressing talents because they have talents in the Arts.
Since boys and girls have different learning styles a co-ed environment produces more variety in learning. Having a single-sex environment limits the social interaction between the sexes. In order to be socially adept, the genders need to collide. A co-educational school is like a small community or network where students know one another and relate to each others lives. The male and female gender interaction provides an outlet for networking with the opposite sex before they enter the real world and are consumed by co-ed society. A fear presented by same-sex schools is that the students will explore their own sex and become homosexual. But in co-ed schools if a student were homosexual students could project a homophobic vibe upon the person.
In my opinion, the choice of same-sex or co-ed it is ultimately a parent’s choice to decide what is right for their child. Both sides have their benefits and pitfalls. An education should be tailored to the person not the person to the education. I would think that educational benefits supersede the need for social interaction that could be gotten at home. I would want my child to be focused and attentive in class, not passing notes to a boy or suppressing talents because they have talents in the Arts.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Assignment due Wednesday, April 23rd
Research the issue of single-gender education. Discuss the pros and cons and give your opinion.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
"Wrongfully" Accused
There are many sex offenders everywhere. That is a fact. However, the laws in different states do vary. I find the Georgia laws in place to protect the public from sex offenders are correct. If a person moves into the state of Georgia, that person must register with the county sheriff within 72 hours of his or her relocation. Or, if a person moves to another neighborhood and has already lived in Georgia, he or she must inform all of the people on the street of his or her residence of the crime committed. This procedure allows that person to defend his or her honor and explain to the neighbors the situation under which he or she was titled a “sex offender.” I believe that these laws are necessary to protect the people, in case other offenses occur. However, I do also believe that people can be unrightfully titled “sex offender” under certain circumstances that need to be considered. The law may be flat, but the offense makes it multi-dimensional. There is a clear difference between two teenagers (one 17 and one 18) having sex and men preying on small children. When thinking about this issue, I can only be reminded of one Dateline NBC special done on sex offenders. It was not a “To Catch a Predator” segment but rather one defending the rights of a man who was “wrongfully” accused of being a sex offender – something that the audience soon found out can haunt a person for many, many years. According to the segment, the man became a sex offender when his girlfriend’s mother turned him in to the police. This may sound like a normal situation – a mother finds her daughter with an older man and gets upset. However, the clincher in this story is that the mother previously new that the daughter, 16, and her boyfriend, 18, were having sex (the mother even took her daughter to buy birth control). The mother only turned in her daughter’s boyfriend as punishment after a large argument with her daughter, not realizing the consequences of her actions. Both teenagers went to the same high school. This situation is unfortunate because the man, who is now close to 30 years of age and married to that same girl, must register as a sex offender every year. I cannot imagine how he will explain his status to his children or the parents of his children’s friends, in the future.
In regards to the R.C.’s Tattoo Parlor opening in close proximity the campus of Piedmont College, I do not feel threatened whatsoever with the knowledge that owner is registered sex offender. I am a legal adult and feel as though days that I may have been “preyed” upon are over. At 19 years old and living in dorms less than one half of a mile away from the place of business of a registered sex offender, I feel completely safe in my position.
In regards to the R.C.’s Tattoo Parlor opening in close proximity the campus of Piedmont College, I do not feel threatened whatsoever with the knowledge that owner is registered sex offender. I am a legal adult and feel as though days that I may have been “preyed” upon are over. At 19 years old and living in dorms less than one half of a mile away from the place of business of a registered sex offender, I feel completely safe in my position.
You Can’t Compare Teenage Mistakes With Child Molestation
With roughly 10,000 sex offenders residing in Georgia, you never know whom you might be standing next to in line on your next trip to the grocery store. Should you be worried? Possibly.
According to washingtonpost.com, the Georgia law for sex offenders is considered one of the most comprehensive in the nation because it covers even the mildest types of sex offenders. These mild offenders are most commonly identified as young adults who had consensual sex with an under aged girlfriend or boyfriend. Although I do see this as an inappropriate activity, I do not believe that it should be grouped in the same category with child molestation. There is a tremendous difference between harming a child and having sex at the wrong age.
Sex at a young age is a mistake that should be handled through corrective means, however there is no need to restrict these people’s resident opportunities. These offenders are in no way out to harm anyone else, so there is no need to separate them from anyone.
An article posted in 2007 by USA Today quoted Oklahoma Rep. Lucky Lamons saying, “We need to focus on people we’re afraid of, not mad at.” The article states that Lamons was a police officer for 22 years and now wants the rules for sex offenders in Oklahoma to focus more on high-risk offenders. This same mindset should be applied in Georgia.
USA Today also quoted John Walsh, host of Fox network’s America’s Most Wanted saying, “You can’t paint sex offenders with a broad brush.” By separating the more serious offenses from the less life threatening ones, the laws governing sex offenders can be more easily enforced. With the separation, the number of considered offenders would be reduced, allowing for better watch of the serious offenders.
The current strict rules for sex offenders are perfectly fine for the serious offenders. No sympathy should be shown towards a child molester. Hopefully Georgia will begin to assess offenses and target the serious ones harshly and the simple ones differently.
According to washingtonpost.com, the Georgia law for sex offenders is considered one of the most comprehensive in the nation because it covers even the mildest types of sex offenders. These mild offenders are most commonly identified as young adults who had consensual sex with an under aged girlfriend or boyfriend. Although I do see this as an inappropriate activity, I do not believe that it should be grouped in the same category with child molestation. There is a tremendous difference between harming a child and having sex at the wrong age.
Sex at a young age is a mistake that should be handled through corrective means, however there is no need to restrict these people’s resident opportunities. These offenders are in no way out to harm anyone else, so there is no need to separate them from anyone.
An article posted in 2007 by USA Today quoted Oklahoma Rep. Lucky Lamons saying, “We need to focus on people we’re afraid of, not mad at.” The article states that Lamons was a police officer for 22 years and now wants the rules for sex offenders in Oklahoma to focus more on high-risk offenders. This same mindset should be applied in Georgia.
USA Today also quoted John Walsh, host of Fox network’s America’s Most Wanted saying, “You can’t paint sex offenders with a broad brush.” By separating the more serious offenses from the less life threatening ones, the laws governing sex offenders can be more easily enforced. With the separation, the number of considered offenders would be reduced, allowing for better watch of the serious offenders.
The current strict rules for sex offenders are perfectly fine for the serious offenders. No sympathy should be shown towards a child molester. Hopefully Georgia will begin to assess offenses and target the serious ones harshly and the simple ones differently.
Protect children from the real predators
Imagining a sex offender living close by to young children is scary. In fact it’s fatal which is why Georgia among other states passed a law which said, “registered sex offenders are banned from living 1,000 feet of schools, churches and other areas where children congregate.” I think this law is a necessity in cases where serious crimes have been committed.
A growing number of officials however want to ease the “not in my backyard” policies that communities are using to try to control sex offenders. Several states including Georgia are considering making changes to sex offender’s residency laws. Oklahoma State Rep. Lucky Lamans says loosening laws will help authorities monitor sex offenders more effectively, as right now offenders are forced to live in rural areas where it’s not easy for them to be monitored.
“We need to focus on people we’re afraid, of not mad at,” he Lamans says. Current laws don’t differentiate between the real predators and the type arrested for urinating in public.
It is a change in the law I feel is necessary which differentiates the seriousness of the crime; real predators need to be properly monitored.
Janet Allison mother of five in Georgia says she has been forced to move into a mobile home “way off a dirt road” because she allowed the 17 year old boyfriend of her 15 year old daughter to move in with them. This is where the system needs to be amended the law needs to focus on protecting the livelihood of children from the real predators.
A growing number of officials however want to ease the “not in my backyard” policies that communities are using to try to control sex offenders. Several states including Georgia are considering making changes to sex offender’s residency laws. Oklahoma State Rep. Lucky Lamans says loosening laws will help authorities monitor sex offenders more effectively, as right now offenders are forced to live in rural areas where it’s not easy for them to be monitored.
“We need to focus on people we’re afraid, of not mad at,” he Lamans says. Current laws don’t differentiate between the real predators and the type arrested for urinating in public.
It is a change in the law I feel is necessary which differentiates the seriousness of the crime; real predators need to be properly monitored.
Janet Allison mother of five in Georgia says she has been forced to move into a mobile home “way off a dirt road” because she allowed the 17 year old boyfriend of her 15 year old daughter to move in with them. This is where the system needs to be amended the law needs to focus on protecting the livelihood of children from the real predators.
Where to Live
American’s must have forgotten the natural laws that their country was founded upon. The three natural laws that the United States of America was founded is the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. John Locke is the first person to say these only he said property instead of the pursuit of happiness. Property is anything you can buy or achieve; so, why are we restricting people from buying land and homes.
Everyday on the news we hear of new sex offenders and new laws punishing them more severely. What American citizens do not realize is that these people are nearly left with nothing. People convicted of any type of sex crime are not allowed to live within 1,000 feet of a child daycare. This law is not that strict and normally people will apply to this law, but some new proposals of some restrictions have caused a major uproar.
One article in the Seattle Times covered this controversy, it said, “In April (2007), Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue signed a stricter law, which prohibits sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school-bus stop. Anyone who does not comply faces a minimum of 10 years in prison.” This is causing tremendous amounts of arguments since there are over 150,000 bus stops in the state of Georgia. Another problem is that the police cannot enforce these new laws. In the article it also says, “Sheriffs say the bus-stop restriction would be almost impossible to enforce.”
With schools in every county it is going to be nearly impossible for a person to find somewhere to live. This is taking away their natural right to property. Some would say they should not have these rights since they broke the law, but some people do not realize that all sex offenders are treated the same no matter what they did. These laws are not specific to one kind of sex law; so, a young boy or girl that had sex with a 16 year old when he or she was 18 would have the punishment as a person who violently rapes someone. If the laws were set for the type of sexual crimes there would be more compliance.
Everyday on the news we hear of new sex offenders and new laws punishing them more severely. What American citizens do not realize is that these people are nearly left with nothing. People convicted of any type of sex crime are not allowed to live within 1,000 feet of a child daycare. This law is not that strict and normally people will apply to this law, but some new proposals of some restrictions have caused a major uproar.
One article in the Seattle Times covered this controversy, it said, “In April (2007), Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue signed a stricter law, which prohibits sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school-bus stop. Anyone who does not comply faces a minimum of 10 years in prison.” This is causing tremendous amounts of arguments since there are over 150,000 bus stops in the state of Georgia. Another problem is that the police cannot enforce these new laws. In the article it also says, “Sheriffs say the bus-stop restriction would be almost impossible to enforce.”
With schools in every county it is going to be nearly impossible for a person to find somewhere to live. This is taking away their natural right to property. Some would say they should not have these rights since they broke the law, but some people do not realize that all sex offenders are treated the same no matter what they did. These laws are not specific to one kind of sex law; so, a young boy or girl that had sex with a 16 year old when he or she was 18 would have the punishment as a person who violently rapes someone. If the laws were set for the type of sexual crimes there would be more compliance.
Show a Little Love
USA Today ran an article which will make it possible for sex offenders to live less than 2,000 feet away from schools or daycare centers. This is not to endanger lives of citizens but give sex offenders somewhere to live. It has become increasingly difficult for sex offenders to find a place of residence. Many cannot live in the Atlanta area because of overlapping zones. With laws now banning sex offenders from bus stations and churches, legislation seems to have gone too far. Sex offenders after weighing their options, either break the law by lying about their address, move to a rural area or end up homeless. If we don’t change the laws, then sex offenders will keep lying about their true residence. It is better to have them living close by and knowing they do instead of not knowing at all. With programs such as Family Watch Dog, available online, the general public has the right to see where a sex offender lives, works and what crime was committed. The program however, is only as good as the information. Therefore we must let sex offenders reside with us so we can keep a close eye on them. The problem with sex offenders living in rural areas is that parole officers cannot easily get to the house of the sex offender to check up on them. In the woods, homes are difficult to locate and GPS devices are not reliable to find the destination. Some sex offenders resort to living in the street. If they offer a false address and cannot make rent, the only choice is living on park benches until caught. Is this really the world we want to grow up in, one where we boot our America out the door? Sex offenders have to be on a registry for the rest of their lives and many don’t deserve the same punishment as others. We need to forgive those who are just trying to earn a living and made their mistake as a young teen and now are remorseful.
No simple solution
Few public officials have acknowledged their responsibility to protect the well-being and fundamental rights of all residents—including those who have been convicted of crimes, according to hrw.org a human rights watch group.
This statement has become increasingly true in more recent years, not only across America but in specific states like Georgia.
Prior to 1994, few states required convicted sex offenders to register their addresses with local law enforcement. However, after the passage of the Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Act, today, all fifty states and Washington, D.C. have sex offender registries. The purpose of these registries being a way to keep “sexual predators” from living at least 1,000 feet away from schools, daycare centers, parks etc. They also allowed the general public the right to know when a sex offender was living or working in their area so that they could better protect themselves and their families.
However, these rights that are given to the general public seem to punish the sex offender even after they have served their punishment for the crime committed. In a sense, they are being persecuted every time they set foot outside their home. Is it fair to strip away their rights just because they have been convicted of a crime?
There are over 636,910 sex offenders in the United States. More specifically there are close to 15,000 in Georgia alone. This means that there are at least that many United States citizens who are being stripped of their right to be protected by the law even after serving the sentence for their convictions.
“People want a silver bullet that will protect their children, but there is no silver bullet. There is no simple cure to the very complex problem of sexual violence,” says Patty Wetterling, child safety advocate whose son was abducted in 1989 and remains missing.
Wetterling is completely correct. Making a person live in fear of having to live in a car or in a trailer out in the woods somewhere just so they can adhere to a law is not fair to them, even if it satisfies other people’s desires.
In the city of Demorest, there are at least 40 registered sex offenders as specified by familywatchdog.us. This means that while 40 people have complied with Georgia state law, it is more than likely that many others have tried to hide the fact that they were convicted of sexual crimes in order to live a freer life and escape double jeopardy.
Georgia has tried to change this sweltering melting pot of protection of all residents in its state by overturning the Georgia law prohibiting sex offenders from living 1,000 feet from anywhere that children may be for more than eight consecutive hours, including schools and parks, by ruling it unconstitutional in 2007.
The Georgia Supreme Court ruling said even sex offenders who comply with the law "face the possibility of being repeatedly uprooted and forced to abandon homes."
Until someone can come up with a better solution as to how to keep convicted sex offenders away from places where children would be on a dailey basis without violating the offenders’ fundamental rights, we are confined to being notified when an offender moves into the neighborhood or area. It is then up to the individual residents of that area what the next action will be.
This statement has become increasingly true in more recent years, not only across America but in specific states like Georgia.
Prior to 1994, few states required convicted sex offenders to register their addresses with local law enforcement. However, after the passage of the Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Act, today, all fifty states and Washington, D.C. have sex offender registries. The purpose of these registries being a way to keep “sexual predators” from living at least 1,000 feet away from schools, daycare centers, parks etc. They also allowed the general public the right to know when a sex offender was living or working in their area so that they could better protect themselves and their families.
However, these rights that are given to the general public seem to punish the sex offender even after they have served their punishment for the crime committed. In a sense, they are being persecuted every time they set foot outside their home. Is it fair to strip away their rights just because they have been convicted of a crime?
There are over 636,910 sex offenders in the United States. More specifically there are close to 15,000 in Georgia alone. This means that there are at least that many United States citizens who are being stripped of their right to be protected by the law even after serving the sentence for their convictions.
“People want a silver bullet that will protect their children, but there is no silver bullet. There is no simple cure to the very complex problem of sexual violence,” says Patty Wetterling, child safety advocate whose son was abducted in 1989 and remains missing.
Wetterling is completely correct. Making a person live in fear of having to live in a car or in a trailer out in the woods somewhere just so they can adhere to a law is not fair to them, even if it satisfies other people’s desires.
In the city of Demorest, there are at least 40 registered sex offenders as specified by familywatchdog.us. This means that while 40 people have complied with Georgia state law, it is more than likely that many others have tried to hide the fact that they were convicted of sexual crimes in order to live a freer life and escape double jeopardy.
Georgia has tried to change this sweltering melting pot of protection of all residents in its state by overturning the Georgia law prohibiting sex offenders from living 1,000 feet from anywhere that children may be for more than eight consecutive hours, including schools and parks, by ruling it unconstitutional in 2007.
The Georgia Supreme Court ruling said even sex offenders who comply with the law "face the possibility of being repeatedly uprooted and forced to abandon homes."
Until someone can come up with a better solution as to how to keep convicted sex offenders away from places where children would be on a dailey basis without violating the offenders’ fundamental rights, we are confined to being notified when an offender moves into the neighborhood or area. It is then up to the individual residents of that area what the next action will be.
Champions of Inhumanity: Whose rights are preserved?
According to http://www.safechild.org/research.htm
“For too many children, child abuse is what they know every day of their lives.”
• Over 2.9 million cases of child abuse were reported last year in this country (NCPCA) (see research section for all citations).
• Approximately 1/3 of sexual abuse cases involve children 6 years of age or younger (National Incidence Study, 1988).
• One in every four girls and one in every six boys will be sexually abused by the age of 18 (Kinsey, Finkelhor).
• Eighty-five to 90% of sexual abuse happens with a person known to the child (Russell).
According to Human Rights Watch (http://www.hrw.org), “three out of four sex offenders do not re-offend within 15 years of release from prison.” This by default means that one in four sex offenders does re-offend within 15 years. Out of 2.9 Million twenty five percent is 725,000. What does this mean? It means that by allowing rapists to return to their original lives we are allowing 750,000 people to suffer sexual abuse.
Tell me, as a nation do we not enjoy bragging that we are the beacon of hope to all the world? As a nation we brag that we give equal rights to all. Who is watching over the rights of the children? One in four is twenty five percent. Do we really want these predators near our schools?
True, 90% of sexual child abuse is perpetrated by individuals who at least casually know the victim. Therefore, residency laws for sexual predators can not completely solve the problem. However, this by no means justifies ignoring the smaller minority. It justifies both residency laws and further steps in child abuse prevention. Personally I believe that sexual predators who have committed felonies, should be kept away from prospective targets. The laws should be strict.
And what of teenage sex? One source of controversy within Georgia was has been the fact that many believed the laws would cause teenage lovers to instantly become felons. However, this is a myth. According to Georgia State House Bill 1059, within the “Romeo and Juliet” (not kidding here) “ For the crimes of,Statutory Rape,Child Molestation, and,Enticing a Child for Indecent Purposes, If the victim is at least 14, but under 16, the defendant is under 18 and there is no more than a 4 year age difference, Then the punishment will be for a misdemeanor.” Therefore, the sexual predators mentioned above are not teenage lovers.
The evidence is clear and concise. The laws are not targeting teenagers. they are targeting sexual predators. These predators have a statistically significant possibility of repeating their crimes. One way to thwart these endeavors is to keep them away for their victims. It may not be the only way, but it exponentially more effective than simply turning a blind eye to statistical evidence.
Monday, April 7, 2008
Assignment Due Wednesday, April 9th
Research the issues surrounding sex offender residency laws in Georgia and write your opinion based on the information you find.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
From "Wife-Beater" to "Husband-Beater"
According to Webster.com, a family is defined as “a group of individuals living under one roof and usually under one head.” The “head” of this family has no predetermined position or gender connected to it whatsoever. Is the “head” the breadwinner father or the strong-armed mother of the family? The average American has evolved over the years to have an independent personality and “do-it-yourself” attitude. The rise of women in professional careers is contributing to the breakdown of the traditional family but this is not necessarily a bad change.
Over the years, men have gained a certain amount of power associated with their work. The real change in work came when men began to work outside of the farm and away from the confines of the home life. Beginning in the 1800s, production moved “out of the household” and into large factories and businesses. People were no longer required to be self-sufficient and grow every crop that they used. With industrialization came dependency. There was a major shift in the tasks assigned to workers. Women, who’s nurturing state caused them to bear and rear children, were required to stay home and tend to a farm or household while the husband went to support the family. Women did not collect a regular salary - therefore were thought to not do any or very little “work.” Men were beginning to have more freedom because they were required to work outside the home. There was soon a demand for a factory work force where only the strong survived. Work became something of contracts, scheduling and six day work weeks. Women soon became accustomed to their “domestic” lifestyle, looking at it as an opportunity to not have to engage in paid employment outside of the home where they were required to live under another’s rules. It soon came to pass that a “lady” only acquired her title because of her father or as a result of a marriage. A woman’s identity was now grounded in her home role.
Leave-it-to-Beaver mothers are simply going out of style. Placing a father in a position of nurturing and caring will change children’s perspective and broaden their views. Children who grow up in homes with strong and dominant fathers have a tendency to rule their household similarly, sometimes taking advantage of their wives. If we take the passive mother role out of the household and allow a father-figure to nurture and care, we create a child who becomes stable and independent as well, having both parents to set examples. Children will have more respect for a wife or mother-figure simply because both parents are satisfied with their positions. With women having more control and power, in the future, the average person will now potentially walk into a store and give a tank-top-like shirt the title of “husband-beater” rather than the contrary.
Over the years, men have gained a certain amount of power associated with their work. The real change in work came when men began to work outside of the farm and away from the confines of the home life. Beginning in the 1800s, production moved “out of the household” and into large factories and businesses. People were no longer required to be self-sufficient and grow every crop that they used. With industrialization came dependency. There was a major shift in the tasks assigned to workers. Women, who’s nurturing state caused them to bear and rear children, were required to stay home and tend to a farm or household while the husband went to support the family. Women did not collect a regular salary - therefore were thought to not do any or very little “work.” Men were beginning to have more freedom because they were required to work outside the home. There was soon a demand for a factory work force where only the strong survived. Work became something of contracts, scheduling and six day work weeks. Women soon became accustomed to their “domestic” lifestyle, looking at it as an opportunity to not have to engage in paid employment outside of the home where they were required to live under another’s rules. It soon came to pass that a “lady” only acquired her title because of her father or as a result of a marriage. A woman’s identity was now grounded in her home role.
Leave-it-to-Beaver mothers are simply going out of style. Placing a father in a position of nurturing and caring will change children’s perspective and broaden their views. Children who grow up in homes with strong and dominant fathers have a tendency to rule their household similarly, sometimes taking advantage of their wives. If we take the passive mother role out of the household and allow a father-figure to nurture and care, we create a child who becomes stable and independent as well, having both parents to set examples. Children will have more respect for a wife or mother-figure simply because both parents are satisfied with their positions. With women having more control and power, in the future, the average person will now potentially walk into a store and give a tank-top-like shirt the title of “husband-beater” rather than the contrary.
Women aren't to blame
There is absolutely no doubt that women play a completely different role in society to fifty years ago. Women are much more career-minded and open to opportunities they could only have dreamed about years ago. At the same time we have this society shift, there are also many more single-parents than ever be before, causing a breakdown of the traditional family structure of mom and dad and the kids. Now stay at home dads are on the rise while some mothers become the main source of finance for the family with their careers. With the breakdown of the traditional family structure some believe that mothers going out to work and being more career-minded is causing this effect. I believe that it may contribute to it in certain situations but there are also other aspects that have caused the breakdown of the traditional family.
The conservative view might take the stand that women are far better than men at caring for a family and the house and therefore women should be less career-minded and concentrate on the home and the kids. However this view doesn’t fit into the real world. Can a family now afford for a woman not to work? Women should be able to work with a family if they wish, just like men, but should also work at making sure their career also allows them to give time to their family and children because this is where a problem could come into place.
Another argument is that consumerism is to blame for a breakdown in family life, longer opening hours and Sunday trading means less time is often spent in the home with family members participating in their own activities outside of the home, when traditionally Sundays were a time for a Family to spend together.
In conclusion I believe that if a family work together at spending quality time with each other then their should be no reason why women working is contributing the traditional family breakdown. Consumerism, single and gay parents and changing values is to blame.
The conservative view might take the stand that women are far better than men at caring for a family and the house and therefore women should be less career-minded and concentrate on the home and the kids. However this view doesn’t fit into the real world. Can a family now afford for a woman not to work? Women should be able to work with a family if they wish, just like men, but should also work at making sure their career also allows them to give time to their family and children because this is where a problem could come into place.
Another argument is that consumerism is to blame for a breakdown in family life, longer opening hours and Sunday trading means less time is often spent in the home with family members participating in their own activities outside of the home, when traditionally Sundays were a time for a Family to spend together.
In conclusion I believe that if a family work together at spending quality time with each other then their should be no reason why women working is contributing the traditional family breakdown. Consumerism, single and gay parents and changing values is to blame.
Gone Are The Days of The Stay At Home Housewife
By the age of 40, about 21 to 27 percent of women who graduated college in the 1980s have both a family and a career, according to Claudia Goldin. Goldin divides women of the 20th century into five “cohorts” in her book entitled The Long Road to the Fast Track: Career and Family. Each cohort shows the rise of women in professional careers and how women handled careers and families simultaneously. Today the number tackling both is higher than ever before. Women can and should raise a family and a career.
Due to the number of women that began to try to have a career and family, the 1980s are known as the “decade of greed.” I believe it should be known as the “decade of prosperity and grow.” Women finally began stepping up and showing they were just as strong as men when it came to handling multiple tasks. For this reason, women also became less dependent on their husbands and finally achieved a life for themselves.
Dana Browning-Ott is happily married with two young children. Browning-Ott owns a dance studio in Toccoa, GA that requires her to work three days a week teaching classes from around 3:00 to 8:00 pm. She believes it is good for children, especially daughters, to see their mother working for herself. She says that although work interferes with her family life a little, for the most part she is happy having a career that allows her to spend a lot of time with her children. “If more women would prepare themselves for the future, more would be able to have both a career and a family” Browning-Ott says.
Autumn Whitworth, a teacher at Woodville Elementary in Habersham, GA, agrees with Browning-Ott in that the reason she chose her profession was because it allowed her to work and still be a huge part of her children’s lives. Whitworth says “I’m independent because my mother was not.” Whitworth said she never wanted to put herself in a position where she could not support her family and her husband respects that.
Although I do not have a family myself yet, I plan to continue my career when I do. I know there are ways to have a career and still be a huge influence on your children. The statistics in Goldin’s book are clear that more and more women are becoming independent and I want to be one of those women. Gone are the days of the stay at home housewife.
Due to the number of women that began to try to have a career and family, the 1980s are known as the “decade of greed.” I believe it should be known as the “decade of prosperity and grow.” Women finally began stepping up and showing they were just as strong as men when it came to handling multiple tasks. For this reason, women also became less dependent on their husbands and finally achieved a life for themselves.
Dana Browning-Ott is happily married with two young children. Browning-Ott owns a dance studio in Toccoa, GA that requires her to work three days a week teaching classes from around 3:00 to 8:00 pm. She believes it is good for children, especially daughters, to see their mother working for herself. She says that although work interferes with her family life a little, for the most part she is happy having a career that allows her to spend a lot of time with her children. “If more women would prepare themselves for the future, more would be able to have both a career and a family” Browning-Ott says.
Autumn Whitworth, a teacher at Woodville Elementary in Habersham, GA, agrees with Browning-Ott in that the reason she chose her profession was because it allowed her to work and still be a huge part of her children’s lives. Whitworth says “I’m independent because my mother was not.” Whitworth said she never wanted to put herself in a position where she could not support her family and her husband respects that.
Although I do not have a family myself yet, I plan to continue my career when I do. I know there are ways to have a career and still be a huge influence on your children. The statistics in Goldin’s book are clear that more and more women are becoming independent and I want to be one of those women. Gone are the days of the stay at home housewife.
Working Women
A few years ago, you could walk into a corporate office and one thing would be missing. That one thing would be women, but as of today and throughout the past few years women have become one of the main forces to be found in professional careers. With the move to a professional workforce, the traditional household has had to make a few modifications.
Look Guys, it's called Anatomy
Freedom for women! Equality of the sexes! Estrogen power! Women, Save yourselves from the evil foot of the devilish white man! Is this not the tune being sung by the rising feminist movement? Perhaps this is only the extremes. However, recently there has been an enormous surge of women in colleges and the workforce. It seems that even though there are no longer campaigns for women’s rights, the feminist movement has never been stronger. Every day the envelop of what is socially acceptable for women is being expanded. The creed of political correctness has changed. It is no longer “equal rights,” but rather “sacred sameness”
Now to be fair, I absolutely agree with equal rights. I believe equal opportunities for all races and genders is absolutely imperative. However, I believe that sameness, absolute equality, sexual in-distinction and gender oriented identically leads to the destruction of the traditional nuclear family. To start, I found the following quotes at http://www.nodnc.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=2
"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage" -- Sheila Cronan
"In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them" Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman
"The care of children ..is infinitely better left to the best trained practitioners of both sexes who have chosen it as a vocation...[This] would further undermine family structure while contributing to the freedom of women." Kate Millet, Sexual Politics 178-179
"The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together. ... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process. ... "Families have supported oppression by separating people into small, isolated units, unable to join together to fight for common interests. ... -- Functions of the Family, Linda Gordon, WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969.
Thus far we note that many of the prominent supporters of the feminist movement are absolutely for the destruction of the nuclear family. They say that without the destruction of the family there can be no true equality of men and women. I agree. In order for women to become absolutely completely equal to men they must be indistinguishable from men in every possible way. Since the institution of marriage obviously recognizes differences in men, women and children, it can not be a component of an absolutely equal society. Therefore, the increasing rise of women as a product of feministic ideals is fundamentally opposed to the institution marriage and therefore the nuclear family. It is not the presence of women in the workforce that is fundamentally against the family, but rather that idea of absolute, total, sacred equality and sameness of the sexes is fundamentally diametrical to the philosophy of the nuclear family. It isn’t that women have equal rights and opportunities. The family breakdown occurs only when women attempt to make themselves identical to men. Perhaps it could have something to do with the anatomical and neural differences of men and women?
Since this is the case, the logical question that should follow is whether or not these changes in the nuclear family are desirable or dreadful. I say it is detrimental in the extreme. Hitler himself said, “When an opponent declares, ‘I will not come over to your side,’ I calmly say, ‘Your child belongs to us already... What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.’” In other words, if you can break down the family, if you can indoctrinate the children, then your government will wield absolute power. This is not the American Ideal. "Destroy the family, and you destroy society." -Vladimir Lenin
Overshadowing equality
The role of women changed dramatically throughout the 20th century. The early years of the century brought women the right to vote. World War II brought many women into the workforce, where they remained. The 1960's and 1970's brought women more rights and affirmative action. In the 1980's, women were the super moms; holding down a full-time job, motherhood, and PTA duty for moms whose children were in school.
Now that we are in the 21st century, the role of women has had its biggest change in history. Women are taking the challenge of professional careers.
According to Microtrends by Mark Penn, the rose of women in “wordy” professions has radically increased. This means that women are turning to law, journalism and public relations. However, these are not the only careers on the rise. Almost all of America retains twice as many women than men in a particular profession. The only difference remains in the male counterpart remaining in executive spots as woman try to clime there way up but fail.
Some say that this drive for making it to the top is causing women to focus more on work and less on family. While this may be true, I believe that it is the change in society values that has had more of an influence on the “traditional family”.
Penn states in his book, “Society is becoming more open, more tolerant, and ultimately more able to build on self-suppression rather than suppressing it.” This is absolutely true. Not only has American society opened its mind to ideas about homosexuality and religion but also about single-parent homes and divorce.
In 1999, Tom Smith, Director of the General Social Survey and author of “The Emerging 21st-Century American Family”, gave an interview to The University of Chicago Chronicle predicting the new living situation of the 21st century. He states, “Because of divorce, cohabitation and single parenthood, a majority of families rearing children in the next century probably will not include the children’s two biological parents. Moreover, most households will not include children.”
Americans has become accustomed to marriage being portrayed as a sacred union that one should not break. If it was broken than it would be a disgrace to one’s family and church. No longer is this the case.
Both men and women are free to decide whether or not they want to marry and reproduce. It is their decision how life is divided among work and home. No longer is it unacceptable for a woman to spend many long hours in a downtown office instead of at a home cooking and cleaning. Americans are opening their minds to new ideas and accepting the outcome.
The United States of America prides itself on equality. The fact that women finally have an opportunity to be equal to men in society should not be overshadowed by a preconceived notion that a traditional family should exist.
Women in professional careers are not the leading factor in the decline of children or the rise in divorce rates. There is more than one way to live life and more opportunities available for those who choose to stray from ancient traditions and beliefs. Times are changing and so are the minds of Americans.
Now that we are in the 21st century, the role of women has had its biggest change in history. Women are taking the challenge of professional careers.
According to Microtrends by Mark Penn, the rose of women in “wordy” professions has radically increased. This means that women are turning to law, journalism and public relations. However, these are not the only careers on the rise. Almost all of America retains twice as many women than men in a particular profession. The only difference remains in the male counterpart remaining in executive spots as woman try to clime there way up but fail.
Some say that this drive for making it to the top is causing women to focus more on work and less on family. While this may be true, I believe that it is the change in society values that has had more of an influence on the “traditional family”.
Penn states in his book, “Society is becoming more open, more tolerant, and ultimately more able to build on self-suppression rather than suppressing it.” This is absolutely true. Not only has American society opened its mind to ideas about homosexuality and religion but also about single-parent homes and divorce.
In 1999, Tom Smith, Director of the General Social Survey and author of “The Emerging 21st-Century American Family”, gave an interview to The University of Chicago Chronicle predicting the new living situation of the 21st century. He states, “Because of divorce, cohabitation and single parenthood, a majority of families rearing children in the next century probably will not include the children’s two biological parents. Moreover, most households will not include children.”
Americans has become accustomed to marriage being portrayed as a sacred union that one should not break. If it was broken than it would be a disgrace to one’s family and church. No longer is this the case.
Both men and women are free to decide whether or not they want to marry and reproduce. It is their decision how life is divided among work and home. No longer is it unacceptable for a woman to spend many long hours in a downtown office instead of at a home cooking and cleaning. Americans are opening their minds to new ideas and accepting the outcome.
The United States of America prides itself on equality. The fact that women finally have an opportunity to be equal to men in society should not be overshadowed by a preconceived notion that a traditional family should exist.
Women in professional careers are not the leading factor in the decline of children or the rise in divorce rates. There is more than one way to live life and more opportunities available for those who choose to stray from ancient traditions and beliefs. Times are changing and so are the minds of Americans.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
I give up...I can't do it all.
Women’s Lib didn’t liberate the women I know. Can women have it all and maintain their sanity? I think not. What were my sisters thinking back in the 1960s? Did they think burning their bras in protest was going to truly affect change or were they just acting out? Didn’t they realize how utterly exhausted their daughters and granddaughters would be just trying to live up to the lofty goals they advocated so hard to achieve?
Growing up steeped in the afterglow of all that forward movement, I believed a female could be anything she wanted to be. My career-minded father coached me as I grew up. He encouraged me to cultivate a firm handshake; one that would make a powerful first impression. No limp wrist allowed. I was going to conquer the world or at least remind everyone I met that I could hold my own in an arm wrestling match.
A circuitous path to success led to a sales job that propelled me up the corporate ladder in a company that promoted on merit. Quickly learning to survive in the male dominated construction industry was tough but I was ultimately promoted to national accounts manager for this dynamic playground safety surface company.
I had it all or so I thought: successful career, solid marriage and the freedom that comes from two incomes. There was just something missing. A new opportunity beckoned and I donned a new hat: “Working Mother.”
Oh, I still thought I could have it all. Continuing to crisscross the country during an obscenely healthy pregnancy, I was convinced an eight pound wiggling mass of humanity couldn’t make that much of a difference. The night before I checked into the hospital for a scheduled caesarian section, my to-do list was organized and I was eager to take the next step. Nothing was going to sidetrack my well-laid plans.
With a shiny new baby in one arm, I worked the phone with the other from the temporary cocoon of the maternity ward. Playground projects scheduled all over the United States didn’t present a problem; I had a network of support that would keep every detail in check.
Arriving home, I tucked my son into his crib and said to myself: “This isn’t so hard.” Phones ringing in a home office at the other end of the hall were a pleasant reminder that I was in still in control.
Fast forward four days when hormones and milk collided. What was I thinking? My precious baby boy wailed for sustenance and my chest was the only 24-hour diner in town. The veneer started to crack. I felt betrayed by an entire generation of women. Why didn’t someone tell me how hard it would be? Corporate ladder? Glass ceiling? I just wanted to sit and inhale the intoxicating aroma wafting up from the swaddled bundle I cradled. The carefully laundered baby blankets sopped up my tears those first few hazy weeks.
As I struggled to maintain my professionalism and dignity while juggling poopie diapers and breast pumps, Joseph was spending his days coming up with fresh ways to enchant me. When he was about 15 months old, the E.P.T. test told no lies. The biological clock was in overdrive and a second son was born 26 months after the first. That was when I surrendered and faced a uniquely female crossroads. I dove headlong into the loud, messy but wonderfully sweet world of full-time motherhood. A daughter came along to add icing to the family cake in 1999.
Trading the corporate ladder for a step stool to help my children reach the potty was a conscious decision and one I made with the support of my husband. I was one of the lucky ones. There are no easy answers; only hard choices to make. We can answer only for ourselves and our individual situations. This debate continues to be waged among working mothers and their stay-at-home counterparts.
Women still want to have it all, but maybe we don’t quite know what that means. It is a fleeting vision at best. The background noise of sibling rivalry and the hum of the dryer keep me grounded in a mundane but extraordinary life. However, there is always the siren song of that pesky woman waving a flaming undergarment around. The choice to feed my knowledge-hungry brain and being present for my family is a daily battle. Guilt whispers not so sweet nothings in my ear and I just want to take a nap.
Now that I’m back in school full-time and heading down a different career path, I feel I’m qualified to answer the original blog question with a resounding YES. Granted, this is just my opinion but we’re [women] tired. Bone tired. How in the world can a family be nurtured and sustained without someone to keep the laundry going? Even in the most equitable of marriages and partnerships, there is still a disproportionate amount of responsibility that falls on the shoulders of the female mate.
If I look back at a career gone fallow, I’m at peace with the tidbits of self-discovery I’ve managed to snatch while pulling fish sticks out of the oven. I’m OK knowing my greatest legacy will be that I successfully potty trained three children. I can say I celebrated when they scrawled their name for the first time and when they learned to read. I was there to witness those moments of profound discovery. My children are growing old enough to be independent and I sense there is still time for me to conquer the world. I have no regret that I invested a season in nurturing the gift of family. Maybe the next generation will find the balance I crave.
Growing up steeped in the afterglow of all that forward movement, I believed a female could be anything she wanted to be. My career-minded father coached me as I grew up. He encouraged me to cultivate a firm handshake; one that would make a powerful first impression. No limp wrist allowed. I was going to conquer the world or at least remind everyone I met that I could hold my own in an arm wrestling match.
A circuitous path to success led to a sales job that propelled me up the corporate ladder in a company that promoted on merit. Quickly learning to survive in the male dominated construction industry was tough but I was ultimately promoted to national accounts manager for this dynamic playground safety surface company.
I had it all or so I thought: successful career, solid marriage and the freedom that comes from two incomes. There was just something missing. A new opportunity beckoned and I donned a new hat: “Working Mother.”
Oh, I still thought I could have it all. Continuing to crisscross the country during an obscenely healthy pregnancy, I was convinced an eight pound wiggling mass of humanity couldn’t make that much of a difference. The night before I checked into the hospital for a scheduled caesarian section, my to-do list was organized and I was eager to take the next step. Nothing was going to sidetrack my well-laid plans.
With a shiny new baby in one arm, I worked the phone with the other from the temporary cocoon of the maternity ward. Playground projects scheduled all over the United States didn’t present a problem; I had a network of support that would keep every detail in check.
Arriving home, I tucked my son into his crib and said to myself: “This isn’t so hard.” Phones ringing in a home office at the other end of the hall were a pleasant reminder that I was in still in control.
Fast forward four days when hormones and milk collided. What was I thinking? My precious baby boy wailed for sustenance and my chest was the only 24-hour diner in town. The veneer started to crack. I felt betrayed by an entire generation of women. Why didn’t someone tell me how hard it would be? Corporate ladder? Glass ceiling? I just wanted to sit and inhale the intoxicating aroma wafting up from the swaddled bundle I cradled. The carefully laundered baby blankets sopped up my tears those first few hazy weeks.
As I struggled to maintain my professionalism and dignity while juggling poopie diapers and breast pumps, Joseph was spending his days coming up with fresh ways to enchant me. When he was about 15 months old, the E.P.T. test told no lies. The biological clock was in overdrive and a second son was born 26 months after the first. That was when I surrendered and faced a uniquely female crossroads. I dove headlong into the loud, messy but wonderfully sweet world of full-time motherhood. A daughter came along to add icing to the family cake in 1999.
Trading the corporate ladder for a step stool to help my children reach the potty was a conscious decision and one I made with the support of my husband. I was one of the lucky ones. There are no easy answers; only hard choices to make. We can answer only for ourselves and our individual situations. This debate continues to be waged among working mothers and their stay-at-home counterparts.
Women still want to have it all, but maybe we don’t quite know what that means. It is a fleeting vision at best. The background noise of sibling rivalry and the hum of the dryer keep me grounded in a mundane but extraordinary life. However, there is always the siren song of that pesky woman waving a flaming undergarment around. The choice to feed my knowledge-hungry brain and being present for my family is a daily battle. Guilt whispers not so sweet nothings in my ear and I just want to take a nap.
Now that I’m back in school full-time and heading down a different career path, I feel I’m qualified to answer the original blog question with a resounding YES. Granted, this is just my opinion but we’re [women] tired. Bone tired. How in the world can a family be nurtured and sustained without someone to keep the laundry going? Even in the most equitable of marriages and partnerships, there is still a disproportionate amount of responsibility that falls on the shoulders of the female mate.
If I look back at a career gone fallow, I’m at peace with the tidbits of self-discovery I’ve managed to snatch while pulling fish sticks out of the oven. I’m OK knowing my greatest legacy will be that I successfully potty trained three children. I can say I celebrated when they scrawled their name for the first time and when they learned to read. I was there to witness those moments of profound discovery. My children are growing old enough to be independent and I sense there is still time for me to conquer the world. I have no regret that I invested a season in nurturing the gift of family. Maybe the next generation will find the balance I crave.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)