Well, I put up this forum because of student requests. So it appears many people see this as a benefit to their study efforts.
Since no one has posted yet, let me offer the following suggestions:
1. Before you pose a specific question, like "what does de Blij mean by...?" Make sure you have done a little dictionary.com and Wikipedia research first. Then, if what de Blij says is still not clear, go ahead and post looking for help from other students or myself.
2. Also before getting specific, I'd like to see people posting their results from the graphic organizer activity we did in class. To recap, we looked at de Blij thesis in this chapter, "if the world appears flat, it is much more so for males than females." In our own words, it might sound something like this, "in spite of globalizing economic benefits for some people, the different 'powers of place' such as health services, economic opportunity, environmental hazard, cultural restrictions/discrimination and educational opportunity affect and determines the fate of women at a higher rate than they do men."
We looked at the organization of the chapter, and using that organization (categories), identified several "key points" or commentaries, that de Blij used to support this thesis. These categories were:
Longevity: there is a paradox here that you need to understand.
Quality of life:
Rulers and Ruled:
If you were paying attention in class, you should have 3 - 5 main ideas in each of these categories. In addition, from your own reading you should have some notes from the beginning and the end of the chapter where de Blij often summarizes his points. Also from your own reading, you should have some quick notes about the evidence (concrete details) de Blij uses to support each or these main ideas (the Nineteenth Amendment strikes me as an obvious one). Lastly, you need to have looked up any terms that you don't know (such as enfranchisement) and jotted down, in your book and notes, the definition.
Posting your main ideas from the class discussion ensures that everyone sees all the main points and allows others to comment on the main points and the supporting detail that the poster feels is most effective in supporting the main idea.
Does this sound like a lot of work to you? Well, yes, it is a lot of work. But this s what learning looks like, sorry, no instant downloads. You are training your brain, and just as when you train your body, there is work involved. So shed yourself of the excuses and just do the work, results will surely follow!
De Blij goes into depth of the anomaly of South Asian politics. Female politicians and leaders were not uncommon there. This stands out to me as a main point, but I'm having trouble understanding why South Asian politics were so female heavy compared to the rest of the world. De Blij points out that the female leaders were part of the ruling family, but then mentions factors that I'm not following. (p.172)
I could be completley wrong, but I think that the reason for so many female politicians in South Asia is due the the fact that they don't have strong traditions of elected leaders being male. (like the US) Also, I think that that deblji is saying that ruling families would anoint female leaders because by being different they earn the respect of other countries. He points out that governments where politics are effected by violence tend not to have female leaders because they don't look threatening enough.
Okay Sam, Leina gave you a good start. De Blij is answering his own rhetorical questions here, one he presumes you would ask as well, "why is this the case?" That is, why does South Asia generally seem more able than the rest of the world to elect women rulers?
As I read it, di Blij offer five reasons:
1. the power and influence that former ruling families have - this their female children benefit from that influence when running for office.
2. the veneration (look it up) the general population in this region tend to have for members of the upper classes - upper classes get a fair shot, even women
3. these women are often highly educated, often in the West and are therefore effective and savvy candidates
4. these women are often appealing - presumably as public speakers and in private meetings with potential donors and other supporters
5. violence often sends women into the public eye as widows. Name recognition alone can improve their chances as a candidate, especially if the public is sympathetic because of an assassination
I hope this helps, we talked about this in first period today, you might want to talk with someone from that class.
I was in first period! I know this one. In general it is exactly what Mr. Bingham said. The reason why being,
-influence of family (An example from first period- both Bush's didn't get elected just cause. It was also because of the name "bush", and the same goes for Hillary Clinton, being wife to a former president.)
Well since no one has posted their results, I’ll take a shot. If im missing anything major, or worrying about anything thats not so important, please let me know
Life expectancies for women are normally higher than those of men.
Longevity gap is bigger in core than periphery.
Risks of childbirth pose greater threat in periphery than core.
Longer life is only advantageous if the quality of life is relatively good.
Quality of life:
Exterior landscape of cultural fabric is largely made up of men.
Some seemingly trivial matters do indeed confirm that the world is “flatter” in general, for men than it is for women, whether in the core or in the periphery.
Domestic Violence, most of the time brought about by males, is a big problem.
Religious Hierarchies are set up in holy scriptures contribute to the hierarchies of males, and this wouldn't be a problem if people didn’t take these books and ways of life seriously, especially in Islam.
Rulers and Ruled:
Great majority of countries are led by males
South Asia is an anomaly because of its high number of female leaders
Male dominance has developed and it persists. Male has been carved into American politics. They have a head start.
Growing prescence of women in parliaments is encouraging if slow
Women have demonstrated far different ideas than men that may improve conditions for women.
The inequalities of gender distort the perception of place.
I’m having a little bit of trouble figuring out the paradox in Longevity Gap that you mentioned in your comment above; the only irony that was obvious to me was the fact that poorer, smaller countries seem to be better at electing female presidents and leaders.
Thanks so much for posting this! I missed class yesterday and didn't get to finish the notes.
The irony if I'm not mistaken is the fact that women who live longer in the periphery are more likely to be widowed (left alone and destitute). In other words, living long in the periphery as women isn't much of a benefit.
I think you're right. Bingham made the point in class that there's no point in living longer if it isn't any good and you're treated badly.
This is a specific question, but I don't understand how on pg160 how de Blij talks about girl mortality rates being higher than boys but then on the next page saying male mortality is 25% higher. Please someone explain thanks
You missed the ages. De Blij says female mortality is higher IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS OF LIFE. After those first few harsh years, only the strongest are left and will naturally die older than the males, who have had the better healthcare and so still have the weak among their population
Hope that helped!
Hey, Kate! I believe he is saying that in reality more females die than males because there are fewer of them born. In the next sentence after the 25% part, he says 105 males are born for every 100 females meaning male mortality becomes less than female mortality because more are born. He just uses that scenario to show that what you see in statistics is misleading and this is what is really behind it. I hope I'm right and that this helps.
On page 161 De Blij states that "the longevity gap is larger in the global core than in the periphery..." Isn't this a bad thing? Wouldn't you want men and women to live for about the same amount of time? And then later in this paragraph he says that a narrow longevity gap is bad. Could someone please explain this?
It's not that women and men living for the same amount of time is bad, it's just that it is an indicator of a country that is not well off. If women aren't living as long as they need to or should, there's a problem with the region
Way to go Sam.
On page 160 the last sentence, "The poverty trap is directly related to the education gap."
Does he mean that for woman, or for the poor locals of both male and female? Before that he was talking about how Males receive more education, and that given the choice, the chance of being educated it always given to the male first. When he talks about the poverty trap, is he talking about females or just poor locals in general?
Thanks in advanced!!
He is referring to both, remember how he said women are the local of locals! De Blij is talking about how one of the reasons women in particular end up being poorer than the men is that they lack even a minuscule education that some males get, which means they have almost no chance of moving ahead. Because parents would rather spend what money they can on a male education, it leaves females with no choice and no opportunity. This leads to the "poverty trap" of locals.
I don't know how important this is..but I don't entirley get Endarkenment. Is it essentially the opposite of Enlightenment? could someone clear this up? Thanks
essentially, yes, it is the opposite! If enlightenment is a sort of insight, usually spiritual, then endarkenment would be the opposite
When I looked it up, it gave me a whole lot of philosophical stuff about reality being defined by what we can prove with Science, especially the scientific method. Or maybe that was what Endarkenment opposes.
Paris,The Enlightenment movement of the 18th century called for a separation if church and state. In this "age of Endarkenment", the opposite effect is occurring, especially in examples like laws regarding female circumcisions.
What is De Blij referring to when he talks about the "glass ceiling" in Barriers Abolished?
He is talking about the definite line between male and female. This "glass ceiling" is something woman are not able to pass. Like a barrier that is there. he says that it will take generations to eliminate it! Think of it as a barrier of sorts, that is the dividing line between how far woman can go before they are stopped
But he is specific with what it is made out of, glass. Glass can be shattered easily?? And is transparent?
What of that?
The glass ceiling is how far women are able to get on the corporate ladder before they stop being promoted.
I'm copying and pasting here!! I looked up the glass ceiling and this is what I found. You made a very interesting point, with it being "glass and fragile" and all, but I'm not sure that is supposed to be taken in the literal sense.
"the unseen, yet unbreachable barrier that keeps minorities and women from rising to the upper rungs of the corporate ladder, regardless of their qualifications or achievements. Initially, the metaphor applied to barriers in the careers of women but was quickly extended to refer to obstacles hindering the advancement of minority men, as well as women."
Its basically an imaginary line where women, in this case, cannot advance in a profession.
Me again! at the top of page 168, de blij talks about the "global norm" what does he mean when he says "power structure" ? Is he just reinforcing that male dominance is apparent everywhere?
He means that male dominated religious hierarchies have created a choke hold on the power. That men control the structure (the order, the "organisation") and thus have control of the power that the structure comes with. He is re-stating that men dominate religious orders even in non-religious societies. This is important because the paragraphs before it talk about the strength of religion in a society and how religious laws have impacted women's lives. So if a male dominated religious order has the power in a non religious society, they are also able to control the destinies of those under them (including women)
While it probably is obvious, how does the power of place connect to gender inequality? In the previous chapters, all the factors root back to the power of place, but because this chapter is actually titled same place, it seems it isn't closely related (other than the situation being worse in the periphery of course). Any last thoughts?
I was actually going to post this question, so maybe this is the answer. Depending on gender and where someone is, males and females are treated either more or less equally. I might be missing something though. It's just a guess.
De Blij's point is, that regardless of the power of place in any location, women are at a disadvantage
Bingham: This forum is for us to engage with each other publicly about where we are struggling with the coursework and to offer each other solutions for what works for us.
Why Geography Matters More Than Ever