Women in our society

Women in our society
Engineer Patricia Galloway believes that serving as the first woman president of the 151-year-old American Society of Civil Engineers — a historically male bastion if there ever was one — makes her a role model to women in the industry.

It's high times for women leading construction-related engineering groups, with three others currently in high office. The same goes for construction organizations. Nova Group's Carole L Bionda is chairelect of Associated Builders and Contractors.

Meanwhile, the US House Education and Workforce Committee last month passed the Family Time Flexibility Act (H.R. 1119) which could undermine workers' most basic rights by altering the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which currently requires employers to pay overtime to certain employees when they are required to work beyond the normal 40 hour work week.( Peterson 98)

At home, we're aware (perhaps painfully so) that men and women often have different communication styles. But it's easy to forget that such differences can show up at work, too. To do an effective job of communicating, keep in mind gender-related communication styles.

Young boys are socialized to give an immediate answer or solution to a problem. Young girls want answers, too, but tend to talk things over to solve problems. So while a man might prefer to work things out for himself, a woman is more likely to want to discuss them. According to researcher Deborah Tanhen, author of Talking from 9 to 5, when a woman starts to discuss an issue with a man, his initial reaction is to supply an answer.

This plays out in the workplace in potentially significant ways. Women may be more likely than men to nurture relationships and work out issues. Men, on the other hand, can be involved in bitter workplace battles, but still socialize together. But for some women a major disagreement can destroy a relationship.

Gender isn't the only influence on communication styles. Cultural and other differences also have an impact. But if you don't understand such distinctions, there can be significant miscommunication. Exemplary leaders are translators; the more you're aware of nuances in communication, the more effective you'll be.

I was intrigued by how differently each group defines the problem of gender violence and its elimination and how differently each envisages ideal gender relationships. The first, based on feminism and a concept of rights, foregrounds women's safety and advocates an egalitarian gender order. Women who are in danger are encouraged to separate from their partners. Husbands and wives are taught to negotiate decisions with the promise of increased trust, love, and sexual pleasure for men who refrain from violence. This approach criminalizes the batterer and encourages the victim to think of herself as having rights not to be beaten regardless of what she does.

Those who end up in such self-management programs have failed to constitute themselves according to the demands of modernity. They are in some ways living outside the disciplinary confines of modern society. The technologies they are taught seek to protect women from male violence but also to produce better workers and citizens. These technologies are resisted, of course..

This analysis complements and expands Nicholas Rose's work on the formation of the soul in modern society. He argues that new systems of governance have emerged in the postwar period that seek to control individual behavior through governance of the soul (Rose 1989; 1999). Individuals come to see themselves as choice-making consumers, defining themselves through the way they acquire commodities and choose spouses, children, and work (Miller & Rose 1990). Social ordering occurs through processes of choice and self-definition, while those who slip outside the bounds of appropriate behavior typically find themselves in a program or institution that encourages them to learn to manage themselves and their feelings. In the liberal democracies of the postwar period, citizens are to regulate themselves, to become active participants in the process rather than objects of domination. Thus, citizen subjects are educated and solicited into an alliance between personal objectives and institutional goals, creating government at a distance. Rose dates the formation of this self-managing system of governance to the 1950s but sees a major expansion during the current era of neoliberalism and the critique of the welfare state (Rose 54).

Although I agree with Rose that an increasing emphasis on governing the soul is characteristic of modem society, I see the transformation not as evolutionary but as the product of social mobilization and political struggle. It is formed through particular movements that establish institutions, attract clients, and achieve recognition. The changes are not simply discursive but are also institutional and practical. People adopt new ways of talking about how to change behavior in order to secure funding to carry on a program or to attract contributing members. Moreover, such a transition encounters forms of resistance, often inchoate and focused on refusal to participate or failure to comply with the new expectations.

Women in our society 8.1 of 10 on the basis of 1537 Review.