Showing posts with label research. Show all posts
Showing posts with label research. Show all posts
Friday, December 19, 2008
Do you have a 50/50 relationship?
I'm reading a preview copy of a great new book by local authors Sharon Meers and Joanna Strober: "Getting to 50/50" (to be published by Bantam Books in February 2009). The book is about how couples (typically with kids) can arrange their lives so that the woman can have a fulfilling career and the man can have a fulfilling family life with all the benefits that both of those things can bring to everyone in the family. I've just got through chapter one. I've waved it at my husband a couple of times, but he's put off by the way its obviously written for a female reader. Ah well, I'll just have to read him choice bits out loud as he sits at the computer working in the evenings.... More to come as I read!
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Intersex Babies
Fascinating article in The Stanford Report, November 12, on "intersex babies": i.e. babies born without a clear sex. The Stanford Report story draws on a new book, Fixing Sex: Intersex, Medical Authority and Lived Experience (Duke University Press) by Katrina Karkazis. Intersex people used to be called hermaphrodites. Sometimes they have mostly male characteristics, sometimes mostly female; the intersex characteristics may be at the genetic, gonadal, or anatomic level.
Dr Karkazis talks about changes to the way doctors view these babies. They no longer tend to treat assigning a sex as essential. Being assigned to the male or female gender is necessary, for social and legal reasons; but surgery is no longer seen as the only or best option for children with ambiguous genitalia or other anatomical intersex characteristics. Dr Karkazis advocates for a more sympathetic view of intersex people, as whole individuals with unique stories, rather than as curious biological specimens. The Stanford Report article concludes with a quote:
'We need doctors, Karkazis said, who will tell...worried parents, "I've seen this before. It's OK. There's no reason your child cannot have a marvelous life." '
Dr Karkazis talks about changes to the way doctors view these babies. They no longer tend to treat assigning a sex as essential. Being assigned to the male or female gender is necessary, for social and legal reasons; but surgery is no longer seen as the only or best option for children with ambiguous genitalia or other anatomical intersex characteristics. Dr Karkazis advocates for a more sympathetic view of intersex people, as whole individuals with unique stories, rather than as curious biological specimens. The Stanford Report article concludes with a quote:
'We need doctors, Karkazis said, who will tell...worried parents, "I've seen this before. It's OK. There's no reason your child cannot have a marvelous life." '
Monday, September 29, 2008
Silicon Valley research this week
Watch out for new research this week from the Clayman Institute at Stanford in collaboration with the Anita Borg Institute for Women in Technology. It's called Climbing the Technical Ladder: Women in Mid-Level Positions in Silicon Valley High Tech. Based on survey and interviews at six leading Silicon Valley high tech companies, it examines why women drop out of the technical ladder, and why so few women make it past the difficult mid-level tier to senior management. It reveals that women want much the same as their male colleagues - and that to improve employee loyalty and retention, companies would be advised to approach all their employees with similar initiatives. Very revealing stuff.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Dual-Career report update
Only 6 days to go till we launch our Dual-Career Academic Couples report. Watch out for a story in the Chronicle of Higher Education on August 20.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Fixing the Knowledge, One Conference at a Time
Here's my report back on the Gendered Innovations conference.
Around 200 people joined us in March for our second two-day conference on Gendered Innovations in Science and Engineering. We were delighted to see such a good mix of people in the audience, including students, faculty (from Stanford and elsewhere - including the University of Uppsala in Sweden!), staff, and our wider community.
The first day opened with remarks by Professor Londa Schiebinger, setting out the reason for our conference subtitle: “Fix the Knowledge.” In a short talk setting out some of the background on the participation of women in science, she explained that the Clayman Institute was seeking to move the discussion beyond “fixing the women” (i.e. making women feel that they have a place in science) and “fixing the institutions” (i.e. creating structural and cultural change in universities and laboratories to make the working environment of science more welcoming to women). The Institute’s goal is to promote research that looks at the substance of science and engineering, “the knowledge”, to see how gender analysis can lead to new questions and completely new approaches to old problems. To publicize some concrete examples, Schiebinger proudly waved a copy of our new volume, also called Gendered Innovations in Science and Engineering (Stanford University Press, 2008), which was published on March 12 (available from good booksellers everywhere).
Professor Terry Winograd opened the first panel of the conference, on Women in Video-Gaming and Virtual Worlds, by asking whether the audience remembered when “gender in gaming” meant adding pink to the packaging? It was clear from this panel’s presentations that things have moved on!
Sheri Ray (Executive Director, Women in Gaming International) questioned the assumptions that are made about women as gamers and argued that women are as likely to enjoy “shoot ‘em up” games as men. She did not think women needed to have special games created just for them, arguing instead that the key is for games to provide a tutorial. Games which expect the user to explore them in order to understand them are, she argued, typically a turn-off for women - while that very feature is what makes them so appealing to most men. Nick Yee (Palo Alto Research Center) supported Ray’s conclusions, noting that he had found an 86% overlap between the interests of male and female players in online gaming. His research suggests that age is more important than gender in causing differing levels of interest/participation in online games. Only 25% of online gamers are teenagers: the average age of gamers is 26. Yee thought the gaming industry was doing itself no favors in neglecting the female and mature market. Professor Vladlen Koltun rounded up the panel with some remarks on the potential of virtual worlds for different kinds of interaction and the redrawing of gender identities. A lively discussion followed!
After the lunch break, the conference moved on to Gender in Engineering. Michelle Zawadzki (Senior Director, Global Knee Development, Zimmer Inc) talked about the development of the Gender Knee, which at last took into account that “Women are not just small men.” Zimmer’s research identified 25 ways knee difference could have been reflected in a new product: in the end, they focused on three. Zawadzki passed a model of the Gender Knee round the audience to help their understanding of these differences. She also described Zimmer’s new work on hip replacement technology: they have identified significant differences between men and women, not reflected in existing artificial hips, which may account for the high levels of dislocation experienced by women who have had hip replacements.
Deborah Kilgore (University of Washington) brought the discussion around to engineering education, focusing on the work of the Academic Pathways Study. She asked the audience to complete a short questionnaire on the relative importance of different factors in designing a playground, then showed the results of the same exercise conducted with first and fourth year engineering undergraduates. Kilgore argued that the results showed first year female students had a “broad” design focus (including items such as handicap access and restroom availability), while the men had a “close” design focus (with emphasis on budget, availability of labor, and material costs). By year four, the results had largely converged.
After the break, the audience heard from Professor Cynthia Friend (Harvard University), Professor Sue V. Rosser (Georgia Institute of Technology), Professor Nancy Hopkins (MIT), and Jim Batterson (Women’s Health Initiative, Stanford) on a range of issues from women in leadership in science, to the impact of scientific patenting, and improving the way women access medical care. Friend observed that scientists need to make more effort to highlight the fun and excitement to be found in scientific research so that more women, and more men too, are encouraged to follow that path.
Day two opened with Sibongile Van Damme (South African National Parks) discussing the role of women in promoting indigenous knowledge in, about and for the environment in South Africa. Speaking from her wide experience working in conservation and in government, she shared two case studies: the Schools Water Action Project (which had involved drawing on the knowledge of village elder women to better understand the use of and attitudes towards water, a scarce resource); and Swazi Indigenous Products, a cosmetics company created through the influence of the Swazi Queen Mother to help poor rural women in Swaziland generate an income from the natural resources around them. (Visit http://www.swazisecrets.com to learn more.)
Professor Kavita Philip followed with an exploration of gender in the artisanal fishing industry in Kerala, India. She shared a video of labor activist Nalini Nayak talking about the impact of new technology, foreign investment, and export-fixated government policy on the industry. Philip made the point that the fishers in Kerala were not opposed to new technology, nor to globalization in itself - indeed, they had forged alliances with people in similar situations in other countries - but they had suffered through the consequences of good intentioned, but ill considered, interventions by development and government agencies. Women, in particular, had found their role in the fishing industry under pressure; and the reduced role of traditional knowledge in the fishing industry had led to some bad outcomes for the local eco-system.
The conference ended with a panel of leading businesswomen in Silicon Valley, moderated by Professor Myra Hart (Harvard Business School). Hart opened by describing the research of the Diana Project which examined the numbers of women in venture capital; and why it that industry had been so poor at attracting and retaining women. She gave a brief introduction to the Clayman Institute’s current study of women in entrepreneurship.
Joyce Chung (Garage Technology Ventures), Ann Winblad (Hummer Winblad) and Diane Greene (CEO, VMware) then discussed their personal and professional experiences in Silicon Valley’s business world. Chung observed that women start companies at a higher rate than men, but they don’t pursue venture capital for high growth in the same way as men. She also wondered if venture capitalists had an unconscious reluctance to fund women entrepreneurs because they were blinked by their tendency to follow existing patterns (“Is this guy the next Steve Jobs?”). Greene commented that she had found it difficult to win over venture capitalists: in discussions with them on potential investment, they would often admit that they would seek to replace her as CEO if they invested.
The panel offered tips for potential VCs and entrepreneurs:
• Work on your network and find a mentor who can introduce you and show you the ropes (Chung - though Winblad disagreed!)
• Be confident in yourself - approach friends and family for investment, don’t be apologetic like you’re asking a favor. Present your idea as an opportunity. (Chung - and Winblad agreed with that!)
• Remember that every deal is crucial. One bad deal, and it can all be over. So think strategically. (Winblad)
• Be a constant learner, understand your flaws and develop your skills. (Winblad)
• Find some work/life balance, whether you are male or female; or you won’t have the energy and motivation to get through the bad days (and there will be bad days). (Winblad)
• Be adaptable - things can change dramatically, and quickly, and as a leader you have to be able to keep everything together. (Greene)
• Have a long term strategy for growth, and build it around a strong founding team. (Greene)
Around 200 people joined us in March for our second two-day conference on Gendered Innovations in Science and Engineering. We were delighted to see such a good mix of people in the audience, including students, faculty (from Stanford and elsewhere - including the University of Uppsala in Sweden!), staff, and our wider community.
The first day opened with remarks by Professor Londa Schiebinger, setting out the reason for our conference subtitle: “Fix the Knowledge.” In a short talk setting out some of the background on the participation of women in science, she explained that the Clayman Institute was seeking to move the discussion beyond “fixing the women” (i.e. making women feel that they have a place in science) and “fixing the institutions” (i.e. creating structural and cultural change in universities and laboratories to make the working environment of science more welcoming to women). The Institute’s goal is to promote research that looks at the substance of science and engineering, “the knowledge”, to see how gender analysis can lead to new questions and completely new approaches to old problems. To publicize some concrete examples, Schiebinger proudly waved a copy of our new volume, also called Gendered Innovations in Science and Engineering (Stanford University Press, 2008), which was published on March 12 (available from good booksellers everywhere).
Professor Terry Winograd opened the first panel of the conference, on Women in Video-Gaming and Virtual Worlds, by asking whether the audience remembered when “gender in gaming” meant adding pink to the packaging? It was clear from this panel’s presentations that things have moved on!
Sheri Ray (Executive Director, Women in Gaming International) questioned the assumptions that are made about women as gamers and argued that women are as likely to enjoy “shoot ‘em up” games as men. She did not think women needed to have special games created just for them, arguing instead that the key is for games to provide a tutorial. Games which expect the user to explore them in order to understand them are, she argued, typically a turn-off for women - while that very feature is what makes them so appealing to most men. Nick Yee (Palo Alto Research Center) supported Ray’s conclusions, noting that he had found an 86% overlap between the interests of male and female players in online gaming. His research suggests that age is more important than gender in causing differing levels of interest/participation in online games. Only 25% of online gamers are teenagers: the average age of gamers is 26. Yee thought the gaming industry was doing itself no favors in neglecting the female and mature market. Professor Vladlen Koltun rounded up the panel with some remarks on the potential of virtual worlds for different kinds of interaction and the redrawing of gender identities. A lively discussion followed!
After the lunch break, the conference moved on to Gender in Engineering. Michelle Zawadzki (Senior Director, Global Knee Development, Zimmer Inc) talked about the development of the Gender Knee, which at last took into account that “Women are not just small men.” Zimmer’s research identified 25 ways knee difference could have been reflected in a new product: in the end, they focused on three. Zawadzki passed a model of the Gender Knee round the audience to help their understanding of these differences. She also described Zimmer’s new work on hip replacement technology: they have identified significant differences between men and women, not reflected in existing artificial hips, which may account for the high levels of dislocation experienced by women who have had hip replacements.
Deborah Kilgore (University of Washington) brought the discussion around to engineering education, focusing on the work of the Academic Pathways Study. She asked the audience to complete a short questionnaire on the relative importance of different factors in designing a playground, then showed the results of the same exercise conducted with first and fourth year engineering undergraduates. Kilgore argued that the results showed first year female students had a “broad” design focus (including items such as handicap access and restroom availability), while the men had a “close” design focus (with emphasis on budget, availability of labor, and material costs). By year four, the results had largely converged.
After the break, the audience heard from Professor Cynthia Friend (Harvard University), Professor Sue V. Rosser (Georgia Institute of Technology), Professor Nancy Hopkins (MIT), and Jim Batterson (Women’s Health Initiative, Stanford) on a range of issues from women in leadership in science, to the impact of scientific patenting, and improving the way women access medical care. Friend observed that scientists need to make more effort to highlight the fun and excitement to be found in scientific research so that more women, and more men too, are encouraged to follow that path.
Day two opened with Sibongile Van Damme (South African National Parks) discussing the role of women in promoting indigenous knowledge in, about and for the environment in South Africa. Speaking from her wide experience working in conservation and in government, she shared two case studies: the Schools Water Action Project (which had involved drawing on the knowledge of village elder women to better understand the use of and attitudes towards water, a scarce resource); and Swazi Indigenous Products, a cosmetics company created through the influence of the Swazi Queen Mother to help poor rural women in Swaziland generate an income from the natural resources around them. (Visit http://www.swazisecrets.com to learn more.)
Professor Kavita Philip followed with an exploration of gender in the artisanal fishing industry in Kerala, India. She shared a video of labor activist Nalini Nayak talking about the impact of new technology, foreign investment, and export-fixated government policy on the industry. Philip made the point that the fishers in Kerala were not opposed to new technology, nor to globalization in itself - indeed, they had forged alliances with people in similar situations in other countries - but they had suffered through the consequences of good intentioned, but ill considered, interventions by development and government agencies. Women, in particular, had found their role in the fishing industry under pressure; and the reduced role of traditional knowledge in the fishing industry had led to some bad outcomes for the local eco-system.
The conference ended with a panel of leading businesswomen in Silicon Valley, moderated by Professor Myra Hart (Harvard Business School). Hart opened by describing the research of the Diana Project which examined the numbers of women in venture capital; and why it that industry had been so poor at attracting and retaining women. She gave a brief introduction to the Clayman Institute’s current study of women in entrepreneurship.
Joyce Chung (Garage Technology Ventures), Ann Winblad (Hummer Winblad) and Diane Greene (CEO, VMware) then discussed their personal and professional experiences in Silicon Valley’s business world. Chung observed that women start companies at a higher rate than men, but they don’t pursue venture capital for high growth in the same way as men. She also wondered if venture capitalists had an unconscious reluctance to fund women entrepreneurs because they were blinked by their tendency to follow existing patterns (“Is this guy the next Steve Jobs?”). Greene commented that she had found it difficult to win over venture capitalists: in discussions with them on potential investment, they would often admit that they would seek to replace her as CEO if they invested.
The panel offered tips for potential VCs and entrepreneurs:
• Work on your network and find a mentor who can introduce you and show you the ropes (Chung - though Winblad disagreed!)
• Be confident in yourself - approach friends and family for investment, don’t be apologetic like you’re asking a favor. Present your idea as an opportunity. (Chung - and Winblad agreed with that!)
• Remember that every deal is crucial. One bad deal, and it can all be over. So think strategically. (Winblad)
• Be a constant learner, understand your flaws and develop your skills. (Winblad)
• Find some work/life balance, whether you are male or female; or you won’t have the energy and motivation to get through the bad days (and there will be bad days). (Winblad)
• Be adaptable - things can change dramatically, and quickly, and as a leader you have to be able to keep everything together. (Greene)
• Have a long term strategy for growth, and build it around a strong founding team. (Greene)
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Girls sweep top honors in Siemens science competition
News on girls succeeding in science and technology, quoted from the newsletter of the National Council for Research on Women:
For the first time, girls have swept the top honors of the Siemens Competition in Math, Science and Technology. One of the nation’s most coveted student science awards, over 1,600 students nationwide entered the competition and 20 finalists were selected to receive scholarships ranging from $10,000 to $100,000. Eleven of the finalists were girls, marking this year as the first time that girls outnumbered boys in the final round.
“These strong results only reaffirm what was highlighted in our report Balancing the Equation: Where Are Women and Girls in Science, Engineering, and Technology. Research shows that girls have as much innate ability as boys to succeed in science, math, and technology, provided they are given sufficient opportunities and support programs,” said Council President Linda Basch.
Honorees included Janelle Schlossberger and Amanda Marinoff from Plainview, NY who took first prize in the team category for creating a molecule that helps block the reproduction of drug-resistant tuberculosis bacteria; Isha Himani Jain, from Bethlehem, PA, took first place in the individual category for her studies of bone growth in zebra fish. Other winners included Alicia Darnell from Pelham, NY who won second place for research that identified genetic defects that could play a role in the development of Lou Gehrig’s disease and the team of Naomi Collipp and Caroline Lang from Yardley, PA, and Rebecca Ehrhardt, from Hamilton Square, NJ, who placed fifth for their research on E. coli bacteria.
For more information about the Siemens prize, visit: http://www.siemens-foundation.org/en/
For the first time, girls have swept the top honors of the Siemens Competition in Math, Science and Technology. One of the nation’s most coveted student science awards, over 1,600 students nationwide entered the competition and 20 finalists were selected to receive scholarships ranging from $10,000 to $100,000. Eleven of the finalists were girls, marking this year as the first time that girls outnumbered boys in the final round.
“These strong results only reaffirm what was highlighted in our report Balancing the Equation: Where Are Women and Girls in Science, Engineering, and Technology. Research shows that girls have as much innate ability as boys to succeed in science, math, and technology, provided they are given sufficient opportunities and support programs,” said Council President Linda Basch.
Honorees included Janelle Schlossberger and Amanda Marinoff from Plainview, NY who took first prize in the team category for creating a molecule that helps block the reproduction of drug-resistant tuberculosis bacteria; Isha Himani Jain, from Bethlehem, PA, took first place in the individual category for her studies of bone growth in zebra fish. Other winners included Alicia Darnell from Pelham, NY who won second place for research that identified genetic defects that could play a role in the development of Lou Gehrig’s disease and the team of Naomi Collipp and Caroline Lang from Yardley, PA, and Rebecca Ehrhardt, from Hamilton Square, NJ, who placed fifth for their research on E. coli bacteria.
For more information about the Siemens prize, visit: http://www.siemens-foundation.org/en/
Friday, September 21, 2007
Are you going to be poor when you're old?
Are you saving for your retirement? No? Wish you were? Will get round to it eventually? Time to start thinking about the future: The Women's Institute for a Secure Retirement (WISER) says that millions of US women may run out of retirement savings.
A report published by the Society of Actuaries, and sponsored by WISER, concludes that men and women generally perceive the risks associated with retirement in a similar way, but that there are significant differences in how they experience those risks. Because women live longer than men (at least 5 years on average), there is a greater risk of exhausting assets: put simply, they are going to be retired longer. Women are also not giving enough thought to the costs of long-term care in their older years. Married couples need to give more thought to preserving benefits for a surviving spouse, and not just thinking about their joint plan for retirement. Today, one third of women over age 62 are collecting social security benefits based solely on the earnings of their spouse.
To see a paper summarizing the the survey findings, go to http://research.soa.org/WomensShortReportfinal.pdf
Read more about the Society of Actuaries complete survey at http://preview.tinyurl.com/39zsaq
It ain't sexy, but it's important. Think about it. Do you want to be poor when you are old, ladies?
A report published by the Society of Actuaries, and sponsored by WISER, concludes that men and women generally perceive the risks associated with retirement in a similar way, but that there are significant differences in how they experience those risks. Because women live longer than men (at least 5 years on average), there is a greater risk of exhausting assets: put simply, they are going to be retired longer. Women are also not giving enough thought to the costs of long-term care in their older years. Married couples need to give more thought to preserving benefits for a surviving spouse, and not just thinking about their joint plan for retirement. Today, one third of women over age 62 are collecting social security benefits based solely on the earnings of their spouse.
To see a paper summarizing the the survey findings, go to http://research.soa.org/WomensShortReportfinal.pdf
Read more about the Society of Actuaries complete survey at http://preview.tinyurl.com/39zsaq
It ain't sexy, but it's important. Think about it. Do you want to be poor when you are old, ladies?
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Do girls like pink because primitive women needed to find ripe fruit?
A new study out of Newcastle University in England says that females really do have a stronger preference for pink than males do. Apparently everyone likes blue, but women tested in the study showed a preference for the "pinker end of the spectrum." No surprise there for the parents of small girls, but I still want to blame the marketeers for giving the girls no choices but pink! Have you seen the back-to-school stuff filling the stores? Pink, pink, pink.
The study involved 208 people age 20-26, with a mixture of British caucasians and recent immigrants to Britain from mainland China. The researchers speculate that female preference for reddish hues may have arisen from sex-specific specialization in the evolutionary division of labour - specifically that women, as the gatherers, needed to develop a way to identify ripe fruits or edible red leaves. Interesting that the researchers do not consider for a moment that women might have been hunters. The old dichotomy of Man-the-Hunter and Woman-the-Cave Keeper lives!
Of course, the study does not control for the impact of all those years of being dressed in pink, sold pink toys, shown pinkly dressed TV heroines, etc etc. Barbie is big on pink. Is the study really just showing how effective all that pink marketing has been? I'd also like to see what the results would be for a group of 70 year olds. Do people outgrow pink? (And, yes of course I am writing this while wearing a pink shirt!)
To read more about the study, take a look at www.sciencedirect.com and search for the article "Biological components of sex differences in color preference" by Anya C. Hurlberta and Yazhu Linga.
The study involved 208 people age 20-26, with a mixture of British caucasians and recent immigrants to Britain from mainland China. The researchers speculate that female preference for reddish hues may have arisen from sex-specific specialization in the evolutionary division of labour - specifically that women, as the gatherers, needed to develop a way to identify ripe fruits or edible red leaves. Interesting that the researchers do not consider for a moment that women might have been hunters. The old dichotomy of Man-the-Hunter and Woman-the-Cave Keeper lives!
Of course, the study does not control for the impact of all those years of being dressed in pink, sold pink toys, shown pinkly dressed TV heroines, etc etc. Barbie is big on pink. Is the study really just showing how effective all that pink marketing has been? I'd also like to see what the results would be for a group of 70 year olds. Do people outgrow pink? (And, yes of course I am writing this while wearing a pink shirt!)
To read more about the study, take a look at www.sciencedirect.com and search for the article "Biological components of sex differences in color preference" by Anya C. Hurlberta and Yazhu Linga.
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Are you raising your daughter to be an over-pressured sexy supergirl?
I bet that's not a question the parents out there get asked very often!
On the plane back from the NCRW conference in Atlanta, I read two reports of great interest to parents of girls - in fact, to anyone who cares about how girls view themselves, and the role they will be taking in society as they get older.
First, "Report of the American Psychological Association's Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls." (May 2007). It's an easier read than it may sound! You can download a copy from: www.apa.org/pi/wpo/sexualization.html
- or request a printed copy from Leslie Cameron at the APA on lcameron@apa.org
It has all kinds of interesting things to say about a huge range of influences on how girls see themselves (and are seen by others) from toys that encourage a sexualized view of women and girls (think Bratz), through the media and advertising, to the new fashion for "sexy" underwear for little girls (the prime example being a little girl in a thong, an article of clothing that started life as stripper wear....).
The second report comes from Girls Inc, which is a great organization with many effective programs to ensure girls, especially from disadvantaged backgrounds, have higher self-esteem and more opportunities. The report, "The Supergirl Dilemma: Girls Grapple with the Mounting Pressure of Expectations", is an analysis of a survey that examined the beliefs of about 3,000 people (girls, boys, and parents). It asked, for example, whether the respondents believe it is true that teachers think it is less important for girls to study math; or whether girls should make marriage one of their life goals. The study looks at girls in 3rd to 12th grade. It is available as a PDF on their website, www.girlsinc.org. Well worth a look.
One of the great things about being at the NCRW conference was the chance to meet so many of the researchers who are creating wonderful research on gender issues in all areas of life, from domestic violence and reproductive rights to workplace issues and international development. I plan to share some of this with you over time, and hopefully wet your appetite for some unguided exploration of what women's studies and gender research can offer to all of us, whether we are parents, employers, students, politicians, service providers, or just plain curious.
On the plane back from the NCRW conference in Atlanta, I read two reports of great interest to parents of girls - in fact, to anyone who cares about how girls view themselves, and the role they will be taking in society as they get older.
First, "Report of the American Psychological Association's Task Force on the Sexualization of Girls." (May 2007). It's an easier read than it may sound! You can download a copy from: www.apa.org/pi/wpo/sexualization.html
- or request a printed copy from Leslie Cameron at the APA on lcameron@apa.org
It has all kinds of interesting things to say about a huge range of influences on how girls see themselves (and are seen by others) from toys that encourage a sexualized view of women and girls (think Bratz), through the media and advertising, to the new fashion for "sexy" underwear for little girls (the prime example being a little girl in a thong, an article of clothing that started life as stripper wear....).
The second report comes from Girls Inc, which is a great organization with many effective programs to ensure girls, especially from disadvantaged backgrounds, have higher self-esteem and more opportunities. The report, "The Supergirl Dilemma: Girls Grapple with the Mounting Pressure of Expectations", is an analysis of a survey that examined the beliefs of about 3,000 people (girls, boys, and parents). It asked, for example, whether the respondents believe it is true that teachers think it is less important for girls to study math; or whether girls should make marriage one of their life goals. The study looks at girls in 3rd to 12th grade. It is available as a PDF on their website, www.girlsinc.org. Well worth a look.
One of the great things about being at the NCRW conference was the chance to meet so many of the researchers who are creating wonderful research on gender issues in all areas of life, from domestic violence and reproductive rights to workplace issues and international development. I plan to share some of this with you over time, and hopefully wet your appetite for some unguided exploration of what women's studies and gender research can offer to all of us, whether we are parents, employers, students, politicians, service providers, or just plain curious.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)