Impact of Gender in the American Dream

Throughout the semester, we have been able to narrow down the meaning of the American Dream and explore different aspects that affect it. It has been interesting to learn about the different perspectives and one of the focuses that stood out to me the most and influenced me to write about in this essay is how gender affects the American Dream. Now there are many different topics under gender such as education, income, workforce and overall opportunities but one topic that I wanted to look more into was the income and earnings part. Economics and money is such a big factor in achieving the American Dream. You may think that money does not buy happiness but money does buy things that will make us happy. For example, owning a car, buying a home, going to college, all of these goals are part of the American Dream and related to economics. 

In White and Hanson`s fifth chapter in  The American Dream in the 21st Century, they discuss how gender is a big factor in achieving the American Dream and essentially claims that women have to face obstacles and barriers that hinders their opportunities to do so. Hanson stated that "today, women average seventy-seventy cents to a man`s dollar" and that there will be a wage gap until 2057. Despite doing the same job, women still get paid less because of their gender. As advanced as we think we are, gender inequality is still an issue. Furthermore, Hanson conducted polls which shows that women are less optimistic about achieving the American dream in the material aspect, including buying a home. This may be caused because of their less paying salaries and benefits. Overall, in this chapter I learned that because money is such a big factor in the American Dream and women are getting paid less, they feel like they have lower chance and are hindered to achieving their goals and dreams to the fullest.

After doing research, I was able to find three arguments on how gender impacts the American Dream financially. The first scholar book, The Career Mystique: Cracks in the American Dream, Part 1 (2005), sociologist Phyllis Moen and psychologist Patricia Roehling address some of the traditional values men and women continue today and one of the main reasons why women tend to be paid less by conducting studies on trends. They claimed that “teenage girls are more likely to babysit for young children and to work for family,   friends, and people they know” while teenage boys are “more likely to perform manual labor, which often pays more than the types of work girls do”. Women and men continue to follow this trend which impacts their major in college and what jobs they are seeking for. The second scholar book is  Lifetime disadvantage, discrimination and the gendered workforce (2016).  In this book, Bisom-Rapp and Sergeant whom are professors of law, explain how being a women results into many disadvantages in the workforce. They claim that women get paid less than men because companies know that women could get pregnant and end up going on maternity leave for a few months. Rather than thinking of their employees well being, they think about all the profit they loose in the process. They state that women who end up going on maternity leave "had failed to gain a promotion they believed they merited, had a reduction in their salary or bonus, or received a pay raise less than their colleagues" (77). This shows how impactful having a child has on a women when they try to get back to work.  The third scholar book is The sociology of gender: an introduction to theory and research (2012). In this book, Wharton breaks down her quantitative studies regarding women and leadership, explores the vulnerability theory, and claims that women are just as hardworking and qualified as men are while the American government is doing nothing to reach gender equality unlike other countries. They argue that America has the greatest gender inequality problem compared to other well developed countries. One of the reasons why is because the government is not prioritizing this issue and most of the politicians are men, which makes the topic irrelevant and not as important to them. 

From these three different arguments, I have come to the conclusion that because women get paid less than men, they have a less advantage of achieving the American Dream. They have to work harder despite doing the same job, they are essentially being discriminated because of biological differences (something we can not necessarily control), and no one supports their cause. Though my first scholar source claims that it is because of the type of jobs they get, I believe that since women know they get paid less in the beginning, they might as well do something they enjoy rather than fight for competition and suffer. 

Gender Inequality in the American Dream

In "Whose Dream? Gender and the American Dream",  Sandra L. Hanson analyzes the gender differences in education, occupation and many other aspects that eventually lead to the inequality in the American Dream as a whole. In this article, Hanson conducts an experiment where she takes polls of how each gender perceives the American Dream and why they do so. Before brining up gender, she mentions in the background information that "the definition of the American Dream is multifaceted" (78). This means that there are many ways people can perceive the American Dream which is why people can not really generalize it as one aspect, and one major difference is how women are treated differently than men.

One of the claims that Hanson makes is that many women tend to take majors that will ensure a lower-status, lower paying jobs rather than men who mainly take STEM majors. There has always been an imbalance ratio between men and women in the STEM field and I believe that most women do not enter it not because they can not handle it but rather they are more comfortable and interested in doing other things and taking the role of being a teacher. Later on, Hanson also claims that "about three-fourths of women workers have experienced sexual harassment in the workplace" (79). This idea of women not wanting to major in heavily-male dominant fields is probably because of how they are treated at work. With such a high statistic alone, it is surprising that many women have to face this at a workplace, a place where people should be professional and doing their job. If women enter a field mainly composed of men, they have a higher change of being discriminated, yet sexual harassed in the work environment. Why risk it when they can major and work somewhere else where they can feel safe? I do believe it is important to sometimes stand out and not follow the norm but there are factors that can overshadow the good.

Another claim that Hanson make is that women of color experience the most backlash. As people may think there is equal opportunity for all, being a person of color and female degrades the possibilities. According to statistics, colored women have a higher percentage of being in poverty which also affect their children`s lifestyle. I find this very interesting because I can not understand the reason behind it. Is it because of where they live? Is it because of the limited opportunities and resources? I feel like there are many factors that lead to this but most of it is because of who they are by appearance. Regarding the experiment conducted, Hanson asked several questions to both genders regarding the American Dream and the results show that there is quite a big difference of perspectives. One of the polls that stood out to me were the ones regarding Obama`s presidency. Based on the results of the polls, women tend to be more democratic than men and had hope in Obama. I believe that it is because Democrats focus on issues such as health care and education that many women pay close attention to. Also, because Obama was the first colored president, it seemed like a stepping stone for women as well, to show that there can still be progress.

Overall, there are many questions I have regarding the gender inequalities within the American Dream. What is the reason for colored women experiencing poverty more? Why are women being paid less when they are doing the same thing as men in a workplace? I have always been aware of this issue however I never knew it was this bad. The American Dream should not be based on characteristics that we can not necessarily control but our ability to work hard and getting the job done.

The Two-Sided Dream

There are many aspects in the American Dream that we want to achieve. Many people have their own individual goals, like buying their own home, and then separate goals for the hope of a better future  and to solve the bigger problems in the world such as poverty. In USC professor Walter Fisher`s scholar paper "Reaffirmation and Subversion of the American Dream", he discusses how ordinary people were influenced to choose their next president during the 1972 election not based on the actions of the candidates, but their take on the American Dream.

Fisher claims that there are two sides of the American Dream, the materialistic and the moralistic. He quotes one of his colleagues who states that Lincoln was able to achieve the whole dream, "the rags to riches materialistic myth of individual success and the egalitarian moralistic myth of brotherhood." (pg. 114).  In the 1972 election, Nixon resembled the materialistic side and McGovern represented the moralistic. In this time period, people wanted to prioritize their own ambitions and self-success rather than having that "arousal of guilt" (pg. 115). Fisher wants to show that the American Dream is complex. It is hard to fully achieve because there are so many things we want to get done. Sometimes we tend to go to one side based on our morals and self instinct. Do we want to thrive and achieve our own dreams or help others? It is really hard to decide but that is why the American Dream is always present. It`s meaning and purpose can always change throughout time. In 2017, I believe that this idea of the two-sided American Dream is still present but most of the time we are sided more on the materialistic side, especially the president and government.  Fisher states that the materialistic side is "compassionless and self centered and encourages manipulation and leads to exploitation" (pg. 114). I   can only think of how Trump and his administration have done numerous things to show how materialistic they are. From trying to abolish the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) to denying climate change and the importance to taking action to prevent it, they don't seem to care for others.  It isn't only evident in the government but in our everyday lives. We get so caught up with having the latest iPhone and car that some of them have been considered "necessary" in our lives.

Fisher also claims that America is driven by the American Dream and it would be nothing without it. He states that "America needs heroes and rituals, presidents and elections, to signify her whole meaning- moralistic and materialistic; she requires symbols that her citizens can identify with..." (pg. 120). Fisher is trying to say that Nixon and McGovern`s way of attracting voters though the idea of the American dream is a way to keep the public interested and appealed to them. There is always that sense of hope that lightens up everyone. In today`s society, firefighters and police officers are symbols to the American people because of their hard work and dedication to helping and saving others. In times of crisis, such as the Las Vegas shooting and Northern California fires, they go out of their way to do their job effectively and efficiently. The symbols don't necessarily have to be a president or leader in a movement but can also be an ordinary individual who helps make the world a better place.

It is evident that there are two sides to the American Dream, the materialistic and moralistic but it is important to take both in consideration.

American Values and Assumptions

In Gary Althens, American Values and Assumptions, Athen informs foreigners about the typical practices and beliefs Americans hold. Individualism, freedom and materialism are some of the few words that define their values. Even though Althen`s primary audience were foreigners, I found this reading interesting because it made me realize how Americans stand out in the world. As an individual who`s lived in three different countries, my values are a bit different but I have learned to adapt to these American values as well.

Athen`s states that "the most important thing to understand about Americans is their devotion to individualism" and that "they`re not trained to see themselves as members of close knit family" (pg. 7). Individualism is important in America because there has always been a strong belief in creating your own path and doing what is best for you. Many Americans believe it is important to teach children lessons when they are young and to let them be independent. In Filipino culture, everything is correlated with family. I think one of the reasons why is because our families are so big and our instinct is always to help one another out. Family does not only mean mom, dad and siblings but it also extends to relatives and family friends. Whenever someone in the family would eat out, everyone had to be invited so there weren't any hard feelings. I was not necessarily raised to not praise individualism but I was always surrounded by an environment which emphasized importance of family. As I grew older, I began to become more independent. I had the choice of choosing my own major and college to attend but family was still a major factor in my decisions. Because family is so important to me, I feel like everything I do is to make them proud and a way to give back to all the sacrifices they made. I try to be more individualistic but sometimes it just doesn't feel right. I do believe individualism is important because it makes you more independent and to not have to rely on others in the future and learn the hard way.

One value that I can relate to is competition. Athen states that "competition pervades in the country" (pg. 9) and everyone is trying to "maintain their superiority" (10) by doing so. As Americans, we try to be the best in everything. The US is known to be one of the super powers in the world because of our leadership and dedication to be at the top. From sending the first man to the moon and creating many new gadgets, America surely enjoys competition and getting praise. Not only does competition prevail on a global level but also in schools and everyday life. In high school, my classmates were continuously fighting over the valedictorian spot, taking all AP classes and trying to getting perfect scores on the SATs. Most of my classmates were all talking about school and grades and there never seemed to be any fun. Since I was surrounded in such a competitive environment, I felt like I also had to do my best to catch up with everyone else because then I would not fit in. In a way, this influenced me to do better and always challenge myself but I never liked the feeling of always trying to "one-upping" others, especially friends. Competition helps us set high standards for ourselves so we can dream big and work even harder.

Academic Writing

Reading, Teaching the Conventions of Academic Discourse as my first academic journal was not bad as I thought, especially since I was not Thonney`s primary audience. One factor that made it easy to  read was the structure of the journal. I like how she lists her main points, which were her six standard "moves" and mentions the topics and journals she will be analyzing along the way. Also, to emphasize her six "moves" she made them as categories in her journal. Even though this was written for scholars and college teachers, the fact that she broke it down into categories gave me a sense of direction.

Thonney uses a lot of evidence and references back to the journals she studied, which was good for her to back up her claims, but it also seemed overwhelming and confusing at times. I think the main problem for me was because I did not understand the context in her evidence examples, such as the ones for Engineering. I do give her credit for branching out her evidence and analysis on several subjects which shows how these writing techniques can be applied for many, if not all classes. Because of that, it threw me off at some sections which resulted into me having to reread it.  Once I was able to understand the concepts, I found it very informative and helpful. For example, in the move "Academic Writers Adopt a Voice of Authority",  I learned the importance and power of using first or third person and writing concisely.

In the first "move", Thonney suggests that writers respond to what others have said about the topic, which reminds me of my 11th grade English class, AP Language and Composition. In this class, we learned how to write three different types of essays and one of them was the Synthesis essay, which we were given several sources to refer to when creating our own argument. My English teacher always told me that the purpose of the sources was not to summarize them but come up with a new idea. I find it interesting how Thonney talks about the same topic. She states that "instead of analyzing, or adding what others have said, they merely show they have 'done the reading'". Personally, I always struggled with this because I always end up agreeing with an idea already stated and ended up reiterating what has already been brought to the topic. I also think its important to add more analysis and a different opinion when it comes to responding to others.

Another convention or "move" that stood out to me was the use of academic and and discipline-specific vocabulary. My past English teachers always told me to not use big words or be too professional in essays because it sometimes seems out of place so I tried not to force myself to search up synonyms or more sophisticated words. As a college student now, I think it is important to use "discipline-specific" vocabulary in essays and papers because they need to be well thought out, organized well and more mature, proficient. I like how Thonney added websites with text analysis tools for students and how important "lexical bundles" are.

Overall,  I liked reading Thonney`s academic journal. Even though it was a challenge at times, she provided good advice and suggestions to help college students write better and effective papers.

United Businesses Stand

In Noah Chomsky`s seventh principle "Engineering Elections" in Requiem for the American Dream, he claims that "corporations have personal rights, and it extended through the twentieth century, when they gradually became persons under law" (pg. 100). In this principle, Chomsky is stating that corporations have a great influence in elections and that it is essentially a way for corporations to pass laws and rulings in their favor, for them to get more money and connections. As corporations already have so much power and influence, getting into politics make them untouchable. With the use of exemplification and cause and effect analysis, Chomsky is able to support his claim with striking evidence.

Chomsky uses exemplification by noting the the Fourteenth Amendment and historical Supreme Court cases such as Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission. The fourteenth amendment defines national citizenship and protects the basic rights of citizens from states. Chomsky compares undocumented aliens and General Elections Company in order to show how the law provides protection for companies but not individuals who even though are not citizens, work hard and handle rigorous jobs. He states, "Undocumented aliens who are living here and building your buildings, cleaning your lawns, and so on, they`re not persons, but General Election is a person, an immortal, super powerful person" (pg. 98). This just shows how brainwashed our country has become to money. We would rather help corporations, who are already thriving to thrive even more, than a person who is doing everything in their ability to survive. This example makes the readers feel guilty, disappointed and other emotions that influence them to side with Chomsky. He also mentions Citizens United vs. FEC, to portray the historical background on how corporations intertwined themselves with elections. This court case ruling allows corporations "to do it (buy elections) with virtually no constraint" (pg. 99). Chomsky also brings up Kennedy, a Supreme Court judge of the case, and his reasoning. He associates CBS`s freedom of speech with General Electric`s "freedom" of money to justify his vote. Chomsky backfires this claim by mentioning how CBS is a "public service" and is completely irrelevant to others companies money. The reasoning behind the ruling of this case makes readers, like me, question the relevance and purpose of this case. Was this for the better, or worse? Chomsky exemplifies important historical aspects that affect us on a daily basis, rights that citizens are entitled to have and rulings that determine our next president. 

Chomsky also uses cause and effect to portray how the process of businesses and politics work. He mentions Thomas Ferguson`s "investment theory in politics" to help support his claim. By buying access from candidates, they also get access to legislatures, people who create laws, "privileged access means that your corporate lawyers go the staff of the legislature, the people who actually write the legislation." (pg. 101). By having all these connections, basically these laws are only beneficial for the common good of businesses, not all. Chomsky uses pathos by creating a negative connotation on his examples and logos by analyzing evidence and stating logical ideas. His evidence make this claim more compelling to the primary audience, the middle class, because they are more educated and knowledgeable of the historical context and the primary target of the "effects". 

Chomsky is able to support his claim with the use of relatable and logical evidence. The fact that businesses "control" a big aspect of elections and politics not only affects the common man but also the American Dream. 

Make America Great Again? America Was Never Great (according to Chomsky)

Why is the American Dream Revolved Around Money?

In Chomsky`s,  Requiem for the American Dream, he refers back to key historical events to back up his main points, that the American Dream is dead and it is only revolved around money and power. 

When I first read this book, I did not quite get the connection and relevance between his context and the American Dream. It seemed as if he was just talking about history and ridiculing it. Looking back at it multiple times, I understand why he presents it like this; to build up his background information, assert his claim and relate it to current events. One of his main principles was to "Shape Ideology". He mentions the Powell Referendum (background information) to link it to an idea that businesses use their money and power to "beat back this democratizing way" (claim- pg. 22). He then goes on with talking about education and indoctrination. Chomsky mentions how students who go to college end up in a trap, of debt and work. As I remember from the beginning of the chapter, he mentions that "universities" are part of the "raving leftists"(pg. 22). Though it was very difficult for me to understand the purpose, I like how Chomsky sets his book us for the readers to think and in a sense, connect the dots.

Referring back to his example, as college students, we will or already have been placed in this trap and it does limit us from achieving the American Dream. If the only thing we are focused on is paying our debt, then how can we live a comfortable life? If you think about it, the American Dream will only be what it is a dream because we will not have the time and money to buy that house or help organizations. Another question that came to mine when reading this was, why do businesses see colleges as a threat? What are they afraid of? College students are only speaking on what they think is right, what they believe in. This idea of businesses and money has also reminded me of businesses that solely depend on students and education. Companies such as the AP college board get millions of dollars every year from students paying for a test. Though we do get credit for college when we pass, why does it cost $90 for one test and every year it seems to increase more and more? Even in education, everything is about money.

When I think about US History, I think about progress, development and moving forward from past mistakes. When Chomsky thinks about US history, he finds flaws and wrongdoings in America`s actions. Yes, he is not completely incorrect but he backlashes and gives an opinion about a part of history that I would have never thought of before. For example, in the "Sins of American Society" (pg. 6-7), Chomsky mention that even though America was on its way to independence, which many people will say is a good thing, he mentions a major driving force was so that slavery would not be outlawed by the British. He talks about the "progress" of this issue by bringing up how slavery was abolished, but not really. In history class, you only learn the general information of the United States, but not to the point where you begin to question every action. Chomsky goes further in depth to correlate America`s history for the purpose of strengthening his view on the American Dream. I would have never looked at history in that perspective but Chomsky does a good job at emphasizing this. Isn't that what argument is about? To learn about different perspectives?

Personally, Chomsky`s writing was challenging but very informative and in some aspect true. Using a lot of historical evidence (ethos) only helps him prove his points. I liked how he alternates the book pages color from green to off-white to accentuate the color of money and to separate his main points (off-white) and evidence (green). From his arguments about universities to business offshoring, they all are major aspects that actually affect the American Dream that many people, including me, were never aware of.