funwriter. 2 discussion posts

With technological advances comes a change in the way we live our day to day lives so, it comes as no surprise that when there is a change in our economy, there is also a shift in your societal structure and gender roles. It is a well known fact that during World War I many women went to work, taking over jobs left behind by men drafted into the war. This was arguably one of the first time that the stereotype that a woman’s place was in the home was challenged. It introduced the idea that women can and should work outside their homes. When looking at East Asian countries, you see that female labor is an essential component of these rapidly expanding economies. Because the labor force is so cheap, many big countries, including the United States, has began outsourcing large sectors of their production process to these countries as a way to keep prices of domestic goods low. “Cheap labor” is synonymous with young and female workers to the point where you can almost use them interchangeably with no discrepancy to what you are trying to say. One would think that because women play such a vital role in the economy, that they would be given a voice and be working towards, if not already on the same playing field as men, but one would be wrong. In fact, even though the Philippines’ economy depends on women working in the labor force, “considering that women’s labor provides the nation with its two largest sources of foreign currency” with “the work of women in electronics manufacturing production amassing more that $27 billion per annum in exports” and “ migrant employment providing a secure source of foreign currency to the Philippines which nets at least $10 billion per annum,” they are still expected to maintain their household roles (Parreñas 28, 40-41). For example, even though Filipino women are essentially the breadwinners, they still face a staggering wage gap and are held back from upward mobility workwise via glass ceiling. “Women still mostly perform jobs that merely extend their responsibilities at home or jobs that reflect domestic characteristics attached to the woman in the home,” for example, they work as nurses, nannies or are given “docile” roles within the production process (Parreñas 42). This is no doubt because of the gender roles we force onto them, the one that says that women should be more nurturing, patient and submissive than men. There is also this double pressure put onto migrant workers who carry the burden of not only being a vital part of their nation’s economy, but are still expected to be a fully available, functional mother and wife. This logic is backed by the statement that “men’s continual participation in the labor market coupled with their higher wages and positions in the domestic labor force contributes to the retention of ideology of separate spheres and consequently makes it more difficult for migrant women to eliminate the ideology of women's domesticity from their construction as wives and daughters” (Parreñas 48). Some may argue that the rapid expansion of the textile industry was a god sent to women of the East Asia because it gave them the opportunity to earn their own wages which gave them a sense of empowerment. But, as Fauzia Ahmed pointed out in her article, “empowerment is linked to choice” and that it is connected to whether or not “workers can leave if conditions are unbearable” and if they can “protest if there are problems” (Ahmed 35). I think that it is important to note that all of the great movements that the people of the United States has been able to achieve over the centuries, like women’s suffrage and civil rights, were strongly due to the alliance between a large group of people which shows us the strength in numbers. Unfortunately, this is something that women workers in Bangladesh lack, “class issues prevent solidarity as do the threat of imminent layoffs” (Ahmed 38). The Bangladeshi female workforce consist of women from all social and economic backgrounds which prevent them from establishing an alliance to fight for better working conditions or higher wages. For example, because “voice at home is related to the woman’s circumstances and background,” some in impoverished situation may be working as the breadwinners of their household, while those from higher class brackets are working to improve their standards of living or entirely for personal needs (Ahmed 40). This creates a divide, because it creates a system where you feel like others cannot relate to your situation, which is what the factory owners want. Most of these workers also give their income to their husbands who then allocates them money to use at their discretion (Ahmed 40). This reinforces the stereotype that the man is the head of a household because even though it’s their money, and they should do with it what they please, they want to continue to make their husband feel superior out of fear of abandonment and violence. I chose these examples in particular because it amazed me that the things that we as American women take for granted are still things that developing countries are struggling to gain. For example, joining a union, being in control of our income, being promoted and being able to hold jobs that are stereotypical deemed for men. One of the things that I thing would help these developing nations is trying to put their class differences aside and look the the bigger picture. If these Bengali women realized that it is easier to negotiate when you have the strength in numbers, they may receive better wages and positions. As for the female Filipino workers, I think we need to give credit where credit is due, these women earn an enormous section of the country’s foreign income and they should be recognized for doing so. As for the duel pressure that they are under, the country should consider the productivity and efficiency of their migrant workers and how much it would increase if they didn’t feel this additional pressure of having to worry about their family while working.

----- Modified Instruction (03/13/2019 17:10:35) -----
Jessica Fermin When you think of the word “family” what comes to mind? United Loving Respect Acceptance Equal LGBT families have always been treated differently in front of society and they have always been looked as if they aren’t human. They face discrimination and phobia towards them from others and they aren’t accepted by some in society. For those who would want to get married, they weren’t allowed to marry the same sex in some countries and this also goes for these families that wanted to have children. Gay and lesbians also were excluded from adopting children. Their ability to have certain things they wanted to live a happy lifestyle were very limited. In the article End of Life it was clear that people were still against LGBT community because of the unfair treatment and disloyalty. It was mentioned, that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and bisexual people didn’t receive and weren’t able to receive end of life care because of the constant discrimination from others. It was also stated that due to this matter, LGBT people would be less likely than others to seek health care because of the discomfort in disclosing sexual or gender identity to providers. It shows that they were neglected from many things only because of their sexuality which is unfair and it doesn’t make sense. In order for things to change, social has to change. Peoples social perspectives must change on those from the LGBT community for them to be accepted. The change starts from how we accept things and look at things with a different meaning instead of being quick to judge right away. These both articles shows that the LGBT community has always been judged and not as respected as they should. They have also been limited to a lot of things such as marriage, health care and even getting married to the person they are deeply in love with. I wouldn’t see why having a egalitarian family would be wrong for couples of the same sex. The article, LGBT Families stated that lesbians mother had a strong desire for children and they would dedicate so much of their time to their children, they were very engaged in the relationship with their children. It was also mentioned that they have a better parenting skills than heterosexual married couples and they show more warmth and affection. In the article LGBT Families shows how different heterosexual couples and gay couples were looked at and respected by against society. Kurdek mentioned, “Lesbian couples without children shared housework more equally than all the other comparison groups and the scores highest on positive dimensions of relationships.” (P. 482) This showed that lesbians had a healthier relationship with their partners and they actually helped each other with housework instead of leaving the responsibilities to one partner as straight couples do. I agree with this because it is important for both to help each other instead of having one person in the relationship do the work. That shows teamwork which is why they also have a healthier relationship because of the respect they have for one another and the positive dimensions of the relationship. In the article End of life care for LGBT also shows the discrimination between gay couples and straight couples. Almack mentioned, “gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender friends—sometimes including former partners— are not appreciated as significant members of a ‘family of choice’” (p. 539) this shows that people from the LGBT community weren’t accepted by their family. If these individuals would have chosen to stay “in the closet” they would’ve most likely be more accepted because their family wouldn’t have judged or maybe even look at them wrong. I think it’s a great thing for them to come out to their friends and family and one their sexuality. Everyone deserves happiness and to live their life how they would love to live. It’s our job as society to accept and respect one’s decisions.