Posted by: madeleinesauter | February 21, 2020

Women in the Arts

“People in the art world want to think we are achieving parity more quickly than we are” (Sterling, 2007).

The National Museum of Women in the Arts continually highlights that just because there is a space for women, it does not mean that anything is equal. The NMWA located in Washington DC is one of the world’s only museums dedicated to providing a space solely for women through the arts. With its collections, exhibitions, programs, and online content, the NMWA provides agency for female artists, advocating for better representation of women artists and provides opportunities to view and exercise leadership, community engagement, and social change. The museum addresses the gender disparity in the presentation of art by providing a space for important women artists of the past and present.

The NMWA has collections of visual, performing, and literary arts. I believe the diversity in the collections is vital to the conversations around the disparity of representation in art, because not all forms of art are accessible to all types of women or people, thus creating an even further distinction between whose voice is heard and whose isn’t. For example, during the first wave of feminism, long prose regarding women’s rights were glorified while poetry was seen as a less desirable form of expression. At the time, the only women who had the time and resources to write prose were women who did not have to work. By disregarding poetry, the first wave of this movement lessened the impact and significance that could have been held by working women, lower class women, women of color, and other marginalized persons.

The National Museum for Women in the Arts addresses this in a myriad of ways. By providing a space for all types of art, the class and race divides that may exist between mediums is lessened. Additionally, the museum actively works to maintain a diverse body of art from a diverse pool of artists. Although having a space for women’s art is not a solution to the disparity in art and representation, it does allow more space to recognize the salience of various identities. I think this is super valuable in art, as so much of what is created comes from some component of an artist’s identities or experiences.

Additionally, the website for the NMWA features a great number of works, making access to the art more accessible for people across the world. Their social media presence also encourages online activism. For example, the NMWA instagram page had a campaign in which they would present a short bio on a female artist and ask the viewers if they could name five female artists. That campaign and others utilize hashtags to get others involved and provide a way for people to participate who may not normally have the means.

Visit the NMWA website

Posted by: laurenreececnu | February 20, 2020

Greta Thunberg: Will She Mark the 18th in 118 Years?

It is rarely shocking that women are underrepresented in the awards they might receive, or positions they might seek. We have discussed the fact that many men beat out women for roles in particularly female-oriented positions, and maintain their status in keeping male-dominated professions just that: male. However, with each new year that comes, women are actively trying to break through their societal shackles of confinement in order to reach an equality with their male peers. In receiving awards, “there is a gender gap in recognition [and] award winning” (Feeney 2018) The achievement of winning a Nobel Peace Prize is no exception.

After being nominated by two lawmakers in Sweden, Greta Thunberg could potentially receive a Nobel Peace Prize. This is the second year in a row that Thunberg has been nominated. If she were to win, she would become the 18th woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize in 118 years (Barr 2020). In 118 years, only 17 women have won this award?

First, it is important to note that Thunberg would not have had this opportunity without the nominations of those who are already currently in power, “The rules of the Nobel Peace Prize nominations dictate that any national lawmaker can put forward an individual to be considered” (Barr 2020). Like we have previously discussed, it takes those at the top to reach down and give a hand to those at the bottom. The two lawmakers explained that Thunberg, “has worked hard to make politicians open their eyes to the climate crisis […] action for reducing our emissions and complying with the Paris Agreement is therefore also an act of making peace” (Folley 2020). Thunberg is overwhelmingly deserving of this nomination and potential award, making history at just 17-years-old.

Thunberg began her activism on August 20, 2018, when she began protesting outside of the Swedish parliament in Stockholm, advocating for the well-being of the environment. She is now a key activist for climate change. Thunberg has never backed down in the face of adversity- even when that adversity was the 45th president of the Unites States. She has given a plethora of speeches on behalf of the Paris Agreement, carbon emissions, and climate change in general. She has stood in front of crowds of (predominately white) male politicians, begging them to care about the environment. Greta Thunberg is the definition of a strong leader. She uses her platform and her beliefs to transform the conversation of climate change. Thunberg’s, “‘Fridays for Future’ school strike movement has helped spark similar youth-led climate demonstrations across the globe” (Folley 2020). By taking her own platform and status that she has built, she has turned around to give other adolescents the opportunity to voice their opinions and ultimately have the chance at being heard. Overall, Thunberg has done an outstanding job at changing the perception of what it means to be a leader- a young, female leader.

While Thunberg all-deserving of her nomination, it strikes the question: How is she only the 18th woman in all of the history of the Nobel Prize to potentially win? Why are women excluded from this award? Research shows that, “an implicit bias against women as experts and academic scientists is pervasive. It manifests itself by valuing, acknowledging and rewarding means scholarship over women’s scholarship” (Feeney 2018). Women in all categories and fields are iced out from this prize, because implicit bias views them as less. Through the various ways that women are unable to make connections in their fields, are quick to be judged -refer to the president’s tweets about Thunberg- they are unlikely to receive the letter of recommendation or the nomination they need to move forward. Greta Thunberg is no exception. Although she is young, smart, and capable, she is merely at the beginning of the obstacles she is to face. The more educated, popular, and loud she gets, the more backlash she is destined to receive. Nonetheless, Thunberg shows no signs of stopping her pursuits or letting off the climate change debate.

Some questions to consider:

Why do you think that women are excluded from the Nobel Prize, and in the future, what measures could be taken to allow more women to win this award?

In what ways to Thunberg’s leadership styles resonate with some of the themes we have talked about in class?

Posted by: mackenzienowak | February 20, 2020

"I Had to Learn"

A field that does not have a large representation of women is in the car and truck industry – not in sales, but mechanics. Growing up with a father who is a diesel mechanic I was taught many things about cars that women aren’t “expected to know.” I found that many of my female friends shy away from learning these helpful life tools, as it was too “masculine,” and they could “always ask their dads or male friends for help.” This surprised me because I had always been taught that there is nothing wrong with asking people for help, but why not learn how to do something yourself so that you can help others?

I found an article online about a mechanic named Patrice Banks in Pennsylvania (yes, a female mechanic). She explains that she used to be afraid that car troubles would cause her to get taken advantage of by male mechanics that assumed she didn’t understand anything about cars. Banks said she used to feel more comfortable looking for a female mechanic to work on her car but soon realized that they are few and far between. So, at 31 she quit her job making six-figures as an engineer and went to technical school with a bunch of 19-year-old boys. She enrolled in night classes and worked for free to get hands-on training until she finally opened her own garage in 2016. Girls Auto Clinic is a shop in Pennsylvania opened by Banks and staffed by female mechanics. To make the garage even more appealing to women, Banks opened an adjoining manicure, pedicure and blowout salon.

The reading for Thursday this week asks some really important questions. Just like little girls began asking about the lack of women in the election, one can ask about the lack of women in the mechanic field. It was really interesting to read about the creation of Barbie dolls to get girls excited and hopeful about certain careers. When I began reading more to write this post, I looked online to see what kind of careers kids can dress their Barbie doll up for. I was pleasantly surprised to find judges, doctors, robotics engineers, beekeepers, astronauts and so many other options. I definitely do not remember having so many options when I was a little girl. While Mattel, the main provider of Barbie accessories, does not seem to have a mechanic option available yet, there are other sites that offer accessories similar to what a mechanic would wear.

This relates very well to our article for Tuesday this week by Martha Lauzen. Even though she is discussing film directors, both jobs exist in male-dominated fields. Lauzen writes about human capital theory, which “posits that members of some groups, such as women, self-select out of certain occupations by not investing their human capital to perform at levels equal to members of other groups, such as men” (Lauzen, 2012). More specifically, human capital theory focuses on the knowledge and experiences of small-scale business owners. This obviously relates very well to Banks and her willingness and drive to become a mechanic and open her own shop for other female mechanics. In this reading, it is used to explain why women can oftentimes invest less time and fewer resources than men. Did Banks prove this theory wrong? Why or why not?

Do you think Banks’ method of opening her own female-staffed shop created more separation between men and women in the mechanics field? Was opening an adjoining hair and nail salon a smart move, or do you think it would attract solely female customers? Can you think of any other fields that have essentially no female representation?

Read more about Patrice Banks here:

“The fashion industry is propped up by women – they spend three times more on clothing than men” (Bain, 2018), with then why is this industry that is not only supported by women spending but also culturally geared towards women dominated by men.

With a quick glance at the fashion industry, one may assume the opposite based on the high number of women who work in the industry, at a closer glance this high majority of women are in entry-level jobs in the industry. Think about some of the top longed for brands in the industry? Who are some of the first names that pop in mind? A study conducted by Business of Fashion in 2015, of the 50 major fashion companies examined, only 7 were run by women. Of the top 10 Fashion Brands from around the World as of 2019, all ten of them have male CEO’s and founders. This phenomenon in the fashion industry has been termed as, “The Glass Runway”.

A study conducted by McKinsey & Company (a global management consulting company), Glamour Magazine, and the Council of Fashion Designers of America (CFDA), interviewed and surveyed US-based professionals throughout the fashion industry at all different levels to look at the sources and solutions to overcoming the gender inequality. One of the sources explored was the idea of an ambition gap. When interviewing women at entry-level positions of the industry around 70% have high aspirations for reaching top executive positions compared to only 60% of men. However, at the VP level, only 73% of women have higher aspirations for themselves. In an interview with a senior leader of a retailer, she stated, “I see women in the 35-to-50-year range who feel grateful for having reached the VP level, and they feel that it would be greedy to want anything more” (Brown, 2018). Meaning that even when women aspire for the higher positions once they are given some sort of position they feel as though they should not ask for more than was given to them.

The other main sources of inequality are, Lacking awareness and commitment. Meaning that this lack of awareness attributes to a lack of action being done about it. Ambiguous success criteria. For men, there seems to be a clear path to success but for women not only is the path unclear but may feel less inclined to ask for promotions that they deserve. This is mostly related to the ideas of “The Glass Ceiling” and “The Labyrinth” that we discussed in class. In the sense that while there are women that are in executive positions in the fashion industry, it is very little as well as the path is unclear and every change for each woman that enters. This less clear path is also attributed to another source of the disparity in sponsorship and mentorship. This meaning that there is less career advice given to women to be able to help guide them to the success that they are trying to achieve. But even so, women are less inclined to be proactive in asking for this advice and therefore they go unnoticed even more.

What are some observations where you can see this disparity apparent within the industry in your everyday life? When discussing this topic with some of my peers a question posed was could this gender disparity also be the root of where much of the discomfort women find with shopping comes from (i.e. Incorrect sizing, unflattering fits, etc.)?




Posted by: delaneymenoher | February 14, 2020

I think I did okay

It has been studied that women speak and act less confidently in comparison to men. I can think of times when I was asked how I did on a test and I said I felt fine about the test but men in my class would boast about how great they thought they had done on the test. This difference between women and men does not appear to be from a lack of confidence in women but instead a double standard between men and women on the acceptable way to exude this confidence. This can be described as a confidence gap. Women have less opportunities to practice confidence when younger, when women are confident, they are told to “tone it down”, and often will be punished in both formal and informal ways for displaying their confidence.

This week’s readings by Zeilinger talked about how Millennial women are not in leadership positions because they feel the pressure to be perfect in order to hold these leadership positions. Women feel pressured to be the perfect women and have it all. However, this pressure to be perfect is a double-edged sword, even if a woman was to reach society’s idea of perfection, she would have to have the confidence to vocalize that she was confident that she had reached perfection. In addition, if women are constantly trying to achieve this idea of perfection how are they supposed to ever feel confident?

The double standard of how society wants men and women to show their confidence can be seen in the reading we had a few weeks ago by Fortini. The article highlighted the two “types” of women leaders, the Bitch and the Ditz. The Bitch described in the article is confident in herself and the credentials that make her a good leader. The term Bitch though is applied to women because of the way she is outwardly confident in herself and her qualifications which is not commonly seen in women because of the confidence gap. The Ditz type of leader describes women who are not as outwardly confident and therefore will divert difficult topics and questions to other people, often times men. The Ditz type is closer to the way society wants women to demonstrate their confidence but not entirely. In my opinion, society wants women to be and feel confident but not let it affect anyone else or their work, creating a type in between the Bitch and the Ditz.

This confidence gap causes more obstacles for women when trying to get jobs. Women more often downplay their successes in comparison to their male counterparts. Although sexism and discrimination are, albeit slowly, leaving the work force these additional, hidden, often psychological differences between men and women created through centuries of oppression still work in favor of the sexist ways of the workplace. What other hidden obstacles may be in the workplace? Does the difference in how confidence is shown in men and women have additional side effects?

Posted by: mariamcquade | February 13, 2020

Lack of Recognition for Female Directors: Oscars Edition

In the history of the Oscars, “only five women have ever been nominated for Best Director, and only one — Kathryn Bigelow — has ever won” (Dockterman, 2020). When the nominations for the Oscars came out, I was one of the many who was shocked that Greta Gerwig, who directed Little Women, was not on the list of nominees for Best Director. In fact, no female directors were nominated at the 2020 Oscars. The lack of female directors nominated was also not due to a lack of them, some of the most critically acclaimed films of the year were directed by women (Greta Gerwig’s Little Women, Lorene Scafaria’s Hustlers, Céline Sciamma’s Portrait of a Lady on Fire, and many more). 

Due to many criticisms of the Academy being predominantly male and white, the Academy has been taking effects to diversify its members, with now 32% of its members being women in 2019. However, because of the way that the Academy structures voting on nominees, only people in that branch are able to vote, meaning that there may not be many women voting for best director. When TIME tried to find out the gender breakdown of the director’s branch, the Academy declined (Dockterman, 2020). While 32% of the Academy being made up by women is better than before, it does not make sense why there is not more of a balance amongst all of the different branches of the Academy. 

Another major reason why women are not being nominated or winning best director is due to the qualifiers placed upon this prestigious award. In the qualifications, “members must have at least two directorial credits, at least one of which had to premiere in theaters in the last 10 years. The films must also be deemed ‘of a caliber which, in the opinion of the executive committee, reflect the high standards of the Academy.’ (Dockterman, 2020). These qualifiers represent structural barriers to women being able to obtain a Best Director nomination, due to the fact that women receive a lot less opportunities to direct more than one film. The Annenberg Institute found that only 4% of the top films in the last decade were directed by women and “of those female directors, only 17.4% had gotten to direct another movie beyond their debut feature…by contrast 45.7% of men who made a top movie in the last decade had gotten to direct more movies after their feature film debut” (Dockterman, 2020). While these restrictions may seem normal at first, when you look at the statistics beyond it it becomes clear that male directors have a clear advantage over the women. For women who decide to take time off for their family, is it fair to have the decade restriction? Especially when thinking about the time that it takes to create a film, are women not able to also take time for their family if necessary? Is this creating even more of a double bind for female directors?

When thinking about the reasons in which these women were not able to even be nominated for ‘Best Director,’ I thought that it was important to recognize that these women are in a traditionally masculine profession. However, the way the system is structured, they are not able to have a fair shot at these accolades of achievement as their male counterparts. What do you think about these qualifications for ‘Best Director’? Do you also think Greta Gerwig was ‘snubbed’ for Best Director? What needs to change in order for more women to be able to be in the Academy, and to be nominated for Oscars?

Source used:

Posted by: emmagmiller11 | February 13, 2020

Social Work: A Female-Dominated Field?

Most people assume that social work is a field for bleeding hearts and for people who are too “feelings” oriented. In stereotypical fashion, people assume that only women are social workers because women “tend” to take on a caretaking role in career fields. For example, in a U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics report from 2017, it was noted that 27% of chief executives were women as opposed to 90% of registered nurses being women and 79% of elementary and middle school teachers being women (“Women in the labor force”, 2017). From this data, some can conclude that women tend to be in jobs that require more compassion and interpersonal skills and are not as well represented in business or top executive positions. However, this was not always the case: in the 80s and 90s, men made up a larger portion of the social work force than they do now (Fischl, 2013). So why do we see so few men in social work positions as of 2020? Why is there so little gender equality in this profession and why are women valued more than men as social workers?

As someone who is working hard to get her Bachelor’s and Master’s degree in social work, I get frustrated by the lack of men in this career. I wish that more men were drawn to this amazing field, a field where you get to engage with people and care for them in practical ways. If we have more men involved in this typically female-dominated field, there will be more diversity of thought. A few reasons that men are not in this career include the lower salary and the origins of social work. Social workers on average get about $40,000 to $50,000 depending on the job and the level of education they have (Master’s, PhD, license) therefore some men might not see it as “worth it” to get a degree in something that will not pay them well, especially if they expect to be the breadwinner (Fischl, 2013). The second reason that men may be avoiding the social work career is the origin of social work began with a woman, specifically Jane Addams and her creation of the Hull House in Chicago of 1889 (Steyaert, 2013). This house was for immigrants in need of resources and various skills; Addams, along with several other wealthy women, helped this community of people through this house (Steyaert, 2013). Following Addams, there were more women than men who helped develop the social work career including Mary Smith and others. The point of adding this information is to note that social work began as a career led by females, not males. This could be one reason for why so few men are in social work today. When I was doing research on why there is a lack of men in social work, I came across this quote: “Since much of social work involves addressing insecurities and hidden issues, it is not surprising that men are reticent to enter the profession in the first place” (Fischl, 2013). It seems that because of the more “emotional” nature of social work, men are deterred by this because they believe that they must hide their feelings and avoid any chance at analyzing them. Emotional intelligence is, in fact, a very important aspect of social work because the worker is constantly examining other people and their emotional states. Women might be more interested in this career because they have been brought up to believe that emotions can be shared and that talking about these emotions is healthy. Contrary to this, men (in many cases) have been raised on the notion that they must be “strong” and “tough” which has translated to mean that they cannot show their emotions or talk about their emotions. However, as we know through various leadership classes, knowing your emotions is a clear sign of maturity and usually adds to a leader’s character. Leaders who have emotional intelligence are often at the front lines of social justice causes and other large-scale movements. This is because a leader must understand herself before she is able to empathize with another person’s problems and take these on as a cause.

Based on the Great Women Theory of Leadership reading we had in class, one can conclude that while it might be beneficial for a woman to use her natural caretaking abilities as a leader, this could cause detriment to her and her male counterpart (Kellerman & Rhode, 2007). For example, although a more emotionally-sensitive woman might be preferred as a leader in certain job fields where that is valuable, she might not be a leader in a Fortune 500 company. Larger companies likely value someone who can make decisions and execute on plans, rather than make a good impression on people. Great Women Theory suggests that the natural “instincts” of women can often be preferred in leadership positions, but I would argue that this is hard to find in our day (Kellerman & Rhode, 2007). Women are often caught in the middle of the “double bind” where they are expected to be intelligent, friendly, decisive, and kind all at the same time. In the reading, there were specific examples when a woman who was efficient in her job was seen as “rude” and yet a woman who was kind to everyone was seen as “stupid” (Kellerman & Rhode, 2007). Social workers, because of what is part of the job description, must be able to accomplish both rapport with their clients and respect from their clients. Even in the official list of values for social workers, there are two statements that suggest a social worker must treat their client with respect AND must stay updated on new policies and literature regarding the field. So although in other careers women might not be able to accomplish doing this “both/and” scenario, being a social worker requires that you are kind AND intelligent. Seeing as a majority of social workers are female, I would argue that this proves that women are capable of both compassion and success in the workforce. What do you think? Do you think more men should be in careers where there are often more women? Can women be both smart and sweet?

Fischl, J. (2013, March 25). Almost 82 Percent Of Social Workers Are Female, and This is Hurting Men. Retrieved from

Galley, D., & Parrish, M. (2014, July 25). Why are there so few male social workers? Retrieved from

Kellerman, B. & Rhode, D. (2007). Women and Leadership: The State of Play and Strategies for Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Steyaert, J. (2013, April). Retrieved from

Women in the labor force: a databook : BLS Reports. (2017, November 1). Retrieved from

Posted by: juliamerritt1 | February 13, 2020

Beyond Rosie, Women in the Military

All branches of the military are male dominated. They have been since the earliest wars and they still are today. Women have served in defending our nation as early as the Revolutionary War. During this time women worked as nurses, cooks and seamstresses. It wasn’t until the U.S. Naval Reserve Act of 1916, which failed to mention gender as a condition service, that formally allowed women to enlist. These women were referred to as Yeomanettes simply to distinguish them from male sailors. While they were able to enlist, their jobs were limited to secretarial and clerical work. Today women are still underrepresented in the military even while their numbers and ranks have grown. After the draft ended in 1973, women were only 2% of the enlisted forces and 8% of the officer corps. It took 43 years, until 2016, for those numbers to reach 16% and 18% respectively. It frustrates me that it took that long for women to be able to do all the things men have been able to do in combat. Women all though now given the ability to obtain the same combat roles as men, their ability to increase in ranks is still extremely difficult and they tend to be overlooked by men.

It is also concerning to me in 2016 during Secretary of Defense Carter’s decision in to make all combat jobs open to women received resistance. Openly, the Marine Corps asked for partial exemption from this new law in infantry, machine gunner. A lot of the concerns that arose were based on a woman’s inability to hold this position because they are simply not built for it. An exercise scientist who studied marine infantry said that as much as want to end exclusion, women won’t be able to do the job because it is so physically demanding. Similarly Carter acknowledged that there are physical differences between men and women but that there are women who can meet the physical demands just as some men cannot. Women have previously proven themselves capable of such roles due to their previous roles in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan for 14 years prior. Women constantly face the double bind and this holds them back from not only advancing in leadership, but obtaining the leadership positions to begin with. Do you think that it is possible for women to ever be equally represented in the military? Does genetics really play a large role in a women ability to serve in combat?

Rosie the Riveter is a cultural icon of WWII. She encouraged many women to volunteer their services during the war while the men enlisted in combat. During the war Rosie enabled women to leave the house and work yet many critics claim that after the war ended, those same women were discharged and the jobs were returned to the men. Do you think this may have caused women to question their abilities and qualifications causing a setback in the progression of gender equality? Even so, Rosie sparked a wave of American feminism and continues to be a symbol strength and capability that women have. The first image of Rosie the Riveter was Norman Rockwell’s in May 1943. To me, this image is the epitome of the double bind women face today. It is a full body image and was illustrated so that Rosie has very muscular arms. This goes against all images of women during the time. Even the way her body is positioned is relaxed and not as poised as women were often expected to be. Years later Rosie was recreated but her image slightly changed. The new Rosie had a face full of makeup, her hair is done up in a red polkadot bandana and she looks very polished and clean. She is still presented to be physically strong but compared to the 1943 image, the size of her arms decreased and appeared more dainty. This was done to appeal more to society and showcase the more feminine side of women while still expressing some more masculine characteristics. Most of our readings discuss the double bind that women face. Women are expected to be more feminine, gentle, and soft as seen in the newer image. The feminists that created this new Rosie had the best intentions of telling women they can do it all but still fell into the gender stereotypes while doing so. Do you think that if the older image of Rosie was more popular that she would still be as large an influence and icon today as she was in WWII? Do you think that Rosie really influences women to believe they “Can Do It” or are there other factors that push women to be in this leadership positions?

The image on the left is the well know “Rosie the Riveter” and on the right is the 1943 Rosie

Posted by: 17gabbyk | February 6, 2020

The Women's March and Inclusivity

As we have learned in class, feminism is simply equality of the sexes. Yet, there are many women in society today who do not call themselves feminists, in fear of being associated with the image of an “ultra-feminist” being a man-hater or proponent of abortion rights. This is unfortunate to think that not all women, who do believe in equality with men, want to be “feminists” because of this skewed interpretation or stereotype of the word. My analysis for this blog is about whether the Women’s March has done much to change this view of the term and discuss how this may correspond to the collective goals emphasized by women in leadership.

In the article, Women’s movement plans next steps, Wong and Eltagouri (2017) of the Chicago Tribune, describe the organizing of the women’s marches across the nation as a grassroots revolution, where local efforts are made to educate women on major issues and to provide an open forum for different viewpoints to be heard. Local organizers of the women’s march in Chicago were said to encourage women to attend the Black Women’s Exposition and participate in the event called “A Day without a Woman,” where women would take off from work and attend workshops that provide education and tools for the topics represented by the women’s march. While these efforts are intended to ensure diverse viewpoints are heard and learned, a consensus on what the main objective of the women’s march should stand for is not as clear. As this article purports, there is a heavy emphasis on pro-abortion rights of women and little room for women who are anti-abortion, or at least the environment portrays it in that way. For example, pro-life organizations’ sponsorship of the women’s march has been dropped on numerous occasions. How is that inclusive of women with different viewpoints or foster the growth of a common goal to benefit all?

I thought it was interesting to point out how one woman mentioned that just because she is pro-life does not mean she is against reproductive rights, one of the founding principles of the march. She further explains by stating in the belief of birth control being used as a tool to prevent abortions from occurring. Thus, pro-life and pro-choice women should instead work together to fight for better access to such medical care, rather than discount the opposing side’s beliefs. Of course, not everyone is going to agree, so it does not matter whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, but rather you respect the differences of philosophies among women and welcome everyone to the conversation. Yet, it still seems like this stereotype of pro-life women is tainted by the image of reproductive rights solely meaning having the right to an abortion. Should this be the focus of the women’s march? I do not think so, because that is a separate debate, rather the focus should be where the goals of all women of different races, genders, and ethnicities overlap (i.e. the pay gap; better work environments and protections) to be a collective unit called Pro-Women and true feminists. What do you think?

Furthermore, what does this mean for the leadership of this movement/march within the upcoming years? From our class reading, Kezar (2014) states that the “woman’s way of leading” has been associated with effective leadership. This involves collaboration of peers, participative decision making, empowerment, ethical speech against injustices, and most importantly deriving a sense of common purpose benefiting solidarity among the group rather than just the leader. In fact, this collectivist form of leadership is preferred among cohorts compared to the traditional-masculine or directive form of leadership. The feministic qualities of leadership seek to facilitate the growth of the followers to become independent thinkers. Kezar (2014) further defines empowerment to be the sharing of power between other organization members to relay their views on issues they believe to be important. If that definition is true, then the fight for women’s justice should be fully inclusive and not have undertones of certain biases that may make other women with different viewpoints feel uncomfortable in participating in being pro-women or called a feminist. In other words, we talk about how women have been blocked from having a seat at the table among men, but how are we as women any better than men if we block other women from sitting at the table just because she does not agree with the majority opinion? That is something to think about.

I hope you feel inclined to read this article (see link below). Some questions to ponder would be: What do you think the focus of the women’s march should be in the future? How can we better empower women from a variety of backgrounds to fight for the overlapping interests of women’s equality?


Kezar, A. (2014). Women’s contributions to higher education leadership and the road ahead. In K. A. Longman & S. R. Madsen (Eds.), Women & leadership in higher education (pp. 117-129). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Wong, G., & Eltagouri, M. (2017). Women’s movement plans next steps. Chicago Tribune. Chicago, IL.

Posted by: Emma Carys Dixon | February 6, 2020

Throw Like a Girl: The Labyrinth Females Face in Sports Journalism

Women face a lot of adversity when it comes to sports. There is the pay gap, where women athletes get paid less than male athletes. Young girls tend to drop out of sports at a faster rate than boys. Males sports tend to make more money and get more attention than women sports. But there is another issue regarding females in sports that does not get as much attention: the lack of female sports broadcasters.

The reason I am most interested in this topic is because it is what I currently do for my on-campus job and what I want to pursue as my full time career. I was interested to see what the field looked like and potential issues I would have to face. I am an on air commentator for the CNUSports department. Most of my colleagues in higher up positions and bosses are all men. The few women who do work with me are mostly lower positions, like camera operators. It really made me question the field I want to enter.  

In 2017, Dionne Miller, a female sports anchor and reporter, did a Q&A interview where she answered questions relating to being a woman in sports journalism. One of the quotes that stood out most to me is Miller said, “As a woman in sports, I already knew I have to push harder. I have to know more, I have to research more, I have to work harder. I can’t make as many mistakes.” This quote was surprising and shocking to me. To hear a woman openly admit that she has to work twice as hard as men is not something that is talked about often. It is often not discussed. I feel like women just work harder because they know it is what they have to do in order to be almost as successful as men.

This quote drew me back to the reading by Eagly & Carli (Chapter 7) and discussion we had earlier in the semester where we talked about how women often have to outperform men in order to be seen as equally competent. Miller’s quote just reaffirms that women know they are expected to work harder to be seen at the same level as men. It is upsetting because men can do the bare minimum and women can work twice as hard and they will be viewed in the same light. To me it reinforces that gender equality still does not exist. Why do we expect more from women than we do men? Why is it an “unwritten rule” that women are expected to outperform men? How can we work toward creating a more just workplace and eliminating extra expectations that are placed on women?

Another interesting part from Miller’s Q&A was when she talked about how she is most proud of being a working wife and mom. This was impactful for me because it shows that women can be both the idealizes stay at home mom but also have careers. It reminded me of the Fontini article (The “bitch” and the “ditz”) when it talked about how Sarah Palin managed to achieve a balance between family life and her career. It shows that the outdated idea that women should stay at home to take care of children is no longer acceptable. It is evident that women can be successful in their careers and maintain a family life. Women should not be placed in a position where they have to choose between their jobs or their families. 

Throughout her interview Miller acknowledges that there is inequality in the sports broadcasting industry, particularly when it comes to pay. There is a large discrepancy between how much male broadcasters make and how much female broadcasters make. She also talked about how there is a huge difference in the number of male broadcasters when compared to the number of female broadcasters. Women are seriously outnumbered in sports journalism statistically speaking. It is one of many male-dominated fields where women have trouble getting their foot in the door. This got me thinking about what we talked about in class and a previous blog post on quotas. It made me wonder if installing a quota for the number of women in sports broadcasting would be beneficial? Or would it cause problems? What would be some of the positives and negatives of adding a quota? Why do we not think women can be as good and knowledgeable as male sports broadcasters?

The final thing I found striking about her interview was when she talked about how women sports broadcasters are judged based on how they dress and how their make-up looks. Women in sports broadcasting are expected to have perfect hair and make-up and dress in a particular way. Women broadcasters are expected to be more eye candy for viewers whereas men do not have these expectations placed upon them. Male broadcasters are expected to know their information. Female broadcasters are expected to dress and act a certain way while also knowing their information. How do these additional expectations take a toll on women? How can they perform their best when they are constantly having to conform to certain gender expressions? How can we expect women to lead effectively in any field of profession when they have more expectations placed upon them than their male counterparts?

All in all, this entire interview with Dionne Miller got me thinking about all male-dominated fields, whether it is sports or law or STEM. Why are there still male-dominated? Why do we think men are more “qualified” than women for these “masculine” jobs? What changes can be made to make it less difficult of a labyrinth for women to get through to reach top positions in these fields or get paid equally?

*To access the Q&A interview with Dionne Miller, click on the embedded link in the article or visit

Older Posts »