Why is gender still an issue in America?

Last week’s story in Newsweek is about Katie Couric’s move from NBC’s morning ‘Today Show’ to CBS Evening News. The undercurrents of the story dwelt on the move from fluffy morning gossip news to hardcore serious news but the bulk of the story emphasized on a woman’s entry into an male-dominated domain. I don’t understand that in the 21st century, why is America so obsessed with gender-dominated roles and I am surprised that they still talk about a woman walking in on a man’s domain. George Bush has skillfully altered the real intent of the war from finding WMDs to installing democracy in Iraq. Women’s’ rights are often bundled as an essential part of the democratic package.

So why should Kate Couric’s role as an evening news anchor make news, let alone primetime news. Of course, stories of a high-profile TV correspondent across networks are news but the kind of news that is being generated is strangely disturbing. Even from a sexist angle, shouldn’t the role of women in an obviously glamorous profession be a non-issue? Some old war horses are claiming that she doesn’t have the gravitas of an anchor delivering serious news and this isn’t one of jigs that involve reading handwritten signs at the Rockefeller Plaza. Katie, however, as any media personality these days is a seasoned journalist and TV correspondent having worked with CNN before she came to the Today Show. The role of gender is still an issue of contention in modern America and after lecturing the world about women’s rights, it is still to have a women president (although next election Hillary is likely to contest). Other countries, developed and developing have long had women prime ministers or presidents. A television drama series on a woman president is watched for its unique factor. Is American truly beyond the gender gap? I know the answer is no; I just wonder why.

Update: After writing this post sometime last week, I saw the movie, North Country (after reading a recommendation from Chetan) this weekend. The movie is set in 1989 and based on a true story about sexual harassment (literally! not the nuanced kind) of women miners in a small town in Minnesota . Some of the attitudes of the men were so primitive that made me wonder that if this is the state of affairs in America then can we really expect much from other regions where exploitation of women is still the norm? By the way, the movie is a must-see.


Related Posts

  1. Browser History and Gender
  2. No Woman President this time
  3. Geek Chicks

  • http://tamilpunkster.blogspot.com megha

    Gender issues have always been a sore issue in America…and Ive always found it strange.
    This can probably be traced back to their puritanical roots, where women were bound by a cult of domesticity; they were ‘sent’ to America for the sole purpose of offering companionship to the men, who came here for vastly different reasons, including political and religious aspirations.
    If you look at it objectively, the puritan religion clearly assumes that women are inferior to men, and for the most part, America still has subtle puritanical leanings, amidst all its development.

    PS: I am a women studies minor, and weve discussed this issue in all my classes extensively. But most of our arguments invariably lead back to america’s Puritan beginnings.

    I really liked this post.

  • Anamika

    Hello Patrix,
    Reading your post, I wonder briefly if you have worked in a corporate field in the US. Maybe not and, then wonder if coming from an highly sexist field such as Architecture (I should know trust me) that you would still be amazed at such a brouhaha over Katie. My only comment is an observation. I think most people tend to equate “development” with “gender equality” and it is those people who are truly amazed that on-ground reality in US does not match the utopian ideals in their minds. I have lived across three continents in so called developed countries other than India and in no country the gender bias have been any different than the parochial attitudes in India. In fact ,in countries like Japan and France, the sexism is much rampant, destructive and vile than in India! In the US the only difference is that they have very successfully created an illusion of gender equality. Start working in an architecture office and see the culture around you with fresh eyes. The inequality is still around and not that deep beneath the surface either. Its just that the attitudes have acquired a little more finesse than say India , where now probably guys would think twice before passing a lewd comment. But whether women are discouraged from site visits to constructions or whether there is a bias towards giving them small, fluffy projects, or whether extremely extremely bad project management is disguised as a macho behavior to strive for where in you do night outs for no reason other than bad management and then say ” I am the man. I can still do it like college” and frown when woman who often have family commitments refuse to tow the line and stay back, sexism is still a part of corporate culture in the US at least in Arch, not to mention the behind-the-back comments from male colleague that a woman is generally promoted only because the “boss is soft on her”. Its just that they (US)are a small, but crucial step, ahead than India and have a basics covered by law. My guess is that if India just gets the no-touching-strange-women-walking-down-the-street-at-my-whim-and-pleasure funda, we will see big difference in perception of equality in India. But when it comes to women working, Indian women today, at least in the cities, work in most professional fields and are empowered. Contrast that for ex with Japan, a developed country. There are almost no women in any professional field. The only fields that you find women working are either nursing (but not doctors), teaching japanese to foreigners in small private schools or running a small business such a coffee shop or a izakaya. But they are not touched by strange men. Which is better in this case? That in India women can and do major in different fields and obtain employment in be it electrical engineering or banking but are probably touched by strange men that minute they step outside the house or that in developed country no matter what your ability or academic major, is you are almost guaranteed not to get a job in it? I agree that US is still better than the examples above, but like I said the US has, in my personal experience, created successfully an illusion that they are almost gender equal and have laws to support it. But while we study, work and live there one tends to forget the timeline. For example how recent the changes and laws in sexual harrasment have been. Once we keep that in prespective, we realize that it is a nascent experience. Just because you have a law that was founded a decade ago does not mean that that is the end of road. All it means is that probably behaviors have been modified, the attitudes might still persist in the head. They will surely need longer that that.
    Anamika-the unknown

  • http://www.retributions.wordpress.com confused

    Hi,

    Interesting post.

    I agree with Megha about the Puritan bit. US still remain a very religious society compared to say Europe. That said, I remember reading a NYT article which traced Harvard female graduates. A large number wanted to give up their jobs as soon as they started their families. They took their own moms as role models.

    But come, the situation is not that bad as Anamika seems to think. Many women are breaking into the top management. I dont know much about Japan, though as far as I know it is still a very tradional society-maybe that explains it.

    However, I totally disagree with your statement about developing countries having woman primeministers proving the ”bad” situation of women in America, the four which come to mind- in India, Sri Lanka. Pakistan and Bangladesh(I am sure you know who I am talking about) are all relatives of major politicians.

    Frankly, I wont ever agree with anyone says Sonia’s Gandhi exalted position is owed to her being a woman(I am not saying you are making that argeument). The Gandhi-Nehru family can produce anyone and he/she will oocupy the same position. We all know why.

    p.s Anamika, even I accept all you said as gospel truth, I will still argue that touching is much worse than anything else.

  • http://ipatrix.com Patrix

    Megha, I guess the puritan religion values still are inherently present in the american psyche. But I guess, after more than 300 years, it is time to move on especially if they chose to preach to other regions about gender equality.

    Anamika, If I get the gist of your argument then it is that gender equality doesn’t matter if the country is developed or not, right? I may agree to that. In that case, how are we supposed to expect attitudes toward gender change? Is it a characteristic in itself or does it correlate to other socio-economic factors, much like crime and poverty does? Or am I just too rosy-eyed to expect gender equality from at least the developed countries considering they claim to be more ‘civilized’.

    Confused, I am not implying that the situation is better in India but the fact that at least women leaders got elected shows that there isn’t an inherent gender bias to the extent that I see here. A Kennedy woman would still not have got elected here. It remains to be seen if a Clinton woman makes any headway.

  • http://www.retributions.wordpress.com confused

    Patrix,

    I am not sure Kennedy’s are quite the same as Gandhi-Nehru family. Come, nothing in the world compares to that.

    ALso, you must remember America has a presidential system of govt while in India we dont elect the PM. That makes a psychological difference.

    Let a woman leader who is not a wife/sister/daughter of a promiment politician become the PM in India.

  • http://ipatrix.com Patrix

    Confused, of course nothing can match the sycophancy for the Gandhi family and I refer to the charisma-stricken electorate be it man or woman. In the US, even if there was such a candidate, she wouldn’t get many votes such because she is a woman and is trying to do a “man’s job”. If a Democrat is not thought of strong enough to handle terrorism, will a woman be considered that? Sad but true.

  • http://palscape.wordpress.com BongoPondit

    Let a woman leader who is not a wife/sister/daughter of a promiment politician become the PM in India.

    The woman who has the best chance right now is probably Mamta Banerji. :-0 Eeeks.

    Sorry for the light-hearted comment in an otherwise serious discussion !

  • http://palscape.wordpress.com BongoPondit

    Btw, just for clarification, I have nothing against a women PM/CEO/any high-ranking position. I also think that Mamta is probably few of the honest politians in India – but if you have been subjected first person to her brand of populism politics (I have twice missed a train and once had a train delayed by 3-4 hours due to her sit-ins), you will realise how scary the thought of having her as the leader of the country is !

    Also, to add my two cents to the discussion, I have noticed quite a few women in the US (few of them also blog) who prefer to be housewife homemakers/soccermoms even when they have an advanced degree or was pursuing a career. They feel that bringing up children properly is also a full-time job and resent it if you say they are wasting their education. One of their contentions is that their education helps them educate the children better.
    On the flip-side, there is a growing number of stay-at-home dads in the US – quite unimaginable in India.

  • http://www.retributions.wordpress.com confused

    Mr Pondit,

    I thought you were off DC and I had few days to read and comment on your posts. You still lurking around? :)

  • http://ipatrix.com Patrix

    Bongo, I second Confused…I thought you were out :)

    Anyway, you are right. The gender roles are continually redefined and stay-at-home parents are fast emerging as an acceptable utilization of your degree especially if you blog. Heh