(S)He Works Hard for the Money

Men are increasingly entering traditionally female-dominated professions, according to recent analysis. Shaila Dewan and Robert Gebeloff reveal that

An analysis of census data by The New York Times shows that from 2000 to 2010, occupations that are more than 70 percent female accounted for almost a third of all job growth for men, double the share of the previous decade.

Dewan and Gebeloff offer a variety of plausible explanations for this trend, including “financial concerns, quality-of-life issues, and a gradual erosion of stereotypes.” They hypothesize that the stigma of entering female-dominated professions is lessoning, while, at the same time, the stability of female dominated professions compared to male-dominated professions is increasingly attractive in the current economy.

Whatever the reason, I believe this trend has interesting implications for not only the gender segregation of labor, but the value of such labor.

Since the rise of wage-labor during the Industrial Revolution, women's labor has consistently been devalued relative to men's labor.* This was the subject of my first blog post, in which I argued that the “caring professions,” including nursing, teaching, and social work, are specifically devalued due to being female-dominated professions.

The introduction of men into the “pink collar” professions may change all this. With more men entering these professions, it is possible that the segregation of labor may slowly begin to erode. Consequently, as both men and women are represented proportionally in various professions, the formerly-female-dominated jobs will no longer be stigmatized as “female,” and will presumably demand a more equitable salary based on merit, rather than gender.

This is a promising idea, but it also troubles me for several reasons:

Is Class Size a Big Deal? Depends on who you ask...

As part of a broader plan to discuss his education policy with the nation (and to shore up the African-American vote, no doubt), Mitt Romney toured a West Philadelphia charter school and spoke at a round table with teachers and educational leaders last week. Our Republican presidential nominee took the opportunity to tout his educational reform mantra of parental choice, introducing plans for voucher program that would use federal money to allow students to attend various well-performing public, charter, and private schools.

Expounding upon his platform, Romney revealed that he does not consider class size to be a determining factor in student performance. Rather, in line with his anti-teacher-union strategy, Romney argued that the push to decrease class size is merely a wasteful union ploy to hire more teachers.

While urban teachers everywhere, whose intuition screams that this is false, pick their jaws off the floor, I will concede two things that lend credence to the Republican nominee: First, Romney's argument is logical, though fundamentally incorrect. Secondly, Romney does cite specific scientific studies that support his conclusion that class size has minimal effect on student achievement.

On a personal level, even this is is hard to admit. In my own experience as a teacher, I found classroom size to be critical to classroom success. This principle was eloquently articulated by Erin Thesing, who teaches at another West Philadelphia charter school, on the Obama-Biden blog this week. Thesing reasoned that “at the end of the day, smaller class sizes mean that there is more time for small groups or individualized instruction, and that is game changing for learning.”

However, putting this “anecdotal” evidence aside, numerous studies, including that which Romney cited, conclude the exact opposite: that class size does not play an important part in student achievement. Plenty of classrooms across the globe have classroom sizes that rival those of the U.S., yet show academic progress at a much higher rate.

What is not recognized in these studies, however, is that the influence of class-size as a variable impacting student performance, is context-dependent. Whether or not class size plays a critical role is dependent upon the particular classroom, in a particular community, etc., etc.

Seeing the Forrest: Population, Development, and Women’s Self-Determination

In a recent New York Times article, Elisabeth Rosenthal addresses the population crisis occurring in Sub-Saharan Africa, where population in many areas far exceeds resources. This rampant population growth has predictably disastrous consequences: substandard living conditions, congestion, rampant unemployment, drains on infrastructure and natural resources (including food and water supply), and, in some areas, immigration concerns.

Rosenthal specifically cites the case of Nigeria, which has seen its population balloon in the last quarter-century to 300 million people despite the spatial and economic limitations of the country. Nigeria contributes to a trend of overall population increase in sub-Saharan Africa, where, in many countries, women often average more than 5 children. Experts state that it growth within this region that is largely accountable for the world population recently exceeding 7 billion.

This is in stark contrast to “developing” countries* in Asia and Latin America, which have seen birth rates stabilize at the expert-sanctioned 2 children per family after years of intensive policy prescriptions aimed at lowering fertility. What is note-worthy, is that most of these interventions are directed at improving women's opportunities and choices.  As the world has learned, when women are educated, afforded some degree of self-determination, and have access to contraceptives and reproductive healthcare, the birth rate drastically decreases and standard of living increases.

When Privacy Controls Aren't Enough...

Those of us maturing in the Facebook Age have undergone a quick schooling on internet privacy. By now, most of us know to carefully control access to our social media profiles for fear of what acquaintances, employers, and even family members might see (don't get me started on the year that Aunt Cindy found a picture of me smoking--- not a pleasant Christmas conversation).  However, employers are now trying to circumvent these attempts at privacy by demanding new employees release their social media passwords during interviews.

This situation raises some interesting questions about citizenship and public space in the digital age. Those who oppose these measures claim that demanding access to an employee's social media presence is a profound violation of privacy, and legislation is already being drafted in Maryland and Illinois to make the practice illegal.  Facebook, itself, has threatened to sue employers who demand passwords.

Personally, I see both sides to the argument of whether or not this level of employer-snooping should be illegal. On the one hand, if we consider our virtual selves as an extension of our human selves (as I have argued here before), then it makes sense that we have some degree of privacy based on our historic conceptions of liberal citizenship and the public/private sphere distinction. In other words, what you do in the privacy of your home, or on your homepage, is your own business. There would also be a strong legal argument against the practice among public sector employers by invoking the right to privacy read into the 14^th Amendment.

On the other hand, if we consider the internet, itself, as an extension of the public sphere, privacy is no longer the issue. Privacy remains in the home, away from the computer, and what we freely choose to reveal to the world-wide-web is a matter of public speculation.

Beyond these philosophical questions, the situation sheds light onto current labor relations in this country. If Facebook had been around 15 years ago, when the job market was far less grim, would this occur? If unemployment and under-employment were lower--- if people were less desperate for jobs and employers did not have such a wide pool of applicants--- would employees stand for this level of invasiveness?

Unfortunately, we are living in times when employees do not have the luxury of refusing demands. So, if you're in the job market, be prepared to defend that rant against Corporate America and those pictures from Spring Break 2007. Until then, readers, set your privacy settings-- like your aspirations for a better tomorrow-- very high.

Learning is Struggle

In this recent blog post, psychology professor Nate Kornell explores a fascinating aspect of learning: challenge. He argues that clarity can actually be an impediment to learning, as it is only through challenges that people correct their misconceptions and reach true understanding.

As a former teacher and life-long student, I find this to be very true. As much as we are wont to believe that students miraculously learn through a teacher-dictated-top-down approach, learning is really a self-directed process.  As Kornell states, “According to growing mountain of research, understanding isn’t enough. It’s the struggle that makes us learn.”

What Are You Reading?

I'm deviating from the blogger path right now, but I'm very curious what online news sources/journalism you all read.  I've included my list below.  I'll include a blog list in another post.  I'd like to say that I get the time to regularly read all these, but...you know... Netflix... shit....

Al Jazeera English ** This is where I read most of my news, actually.
Alternet 
Propublica
The Hill
Freakonomics Blog ok, I know I said no blogs, but I consider this a pretty useful source of info
Salon 
Mother Jones love/hate, but they've been on point lately
Wired
Miller McCune -- just found this; it's AWESOME
Daily Kos
Real Clear Politics ok, they mostly consolidate news, but they do a damn fine job of it
The Nation


Of course, there's the usual suspects, too: WSJ, WashPo, NYTimes, etc.


So now it's your turn? What are you reading? What's good?


Megan


ps I know this post sounds like a pretentious "omg, guess how much *I* read?" thing. Eh, get over it.

Putting the Electric Car on the Back-Burner

Last week, GM announced that it was temporarily suspending manufacture of its Volt hybrid electric car, claiming that there was not enough market demand at the moment to justify production. Sales of the electric car have fallen short of projections, recently, despite several government interventions at the local and federal level to boost sales. These interventions included a $105.9 million grant to help produce battery packs and $151.4 million grant to produce battery cells,* a tax credit to buyers of electric cars, and the ability to drive in High Occupancy Vehicle lanes in the state of California.

The decision relieved many Congressional Republicans, who opposed the heavy hand of the government in this particular branch of the automotive industry and, needless to say, the President's ringing endorsement of it. They claim that, as Pennsylvania Representative Mike Kelly said in a recent House hearing, “When the market is ready...[the car] won't have to be subsidized.” Without delving into whose interests these Republican leaders serve (hint: it rhymes with Shmig Boil), their claim overlooks several key points that expose the most insidious myths of “free market” in this country.