🏷️ LIMITED TIME OFFER: GET 20% OFF GRADE+ YEARLY SUBSCRIPTION →
Log in
HomeStudy Guides420,000CA160,000

WGS160Y1 Final: Notes from the entire year in .pdf format

195 views69 pages
pinkcrow110
13 Apr 2011
School
UTSG
Department
Women and Gender Studies
Course
WGS160Y1
Professor
June Larkin

For unlimited access to Study Guides, a Grade+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

Assignment due on oct 15: based on two weeks from now"s readings. Heterosexism; when lesbian is used as a derogatory term. Backlash terms tell us about what is expected of men and women in society. Negative terms lead to self-policing; people will stay away from the feminist movement so as to avoid the backlash terms. Feminists are socialists, anti-capitalists, anti-family women who kill their children, leave their husbands and become lesbians. Feminism is about equality among the sexes-- to be treated equally. One woman said she didn"t want to desert her family. Only heterosexual partners, and that this is the best & only family form, and it is the basis of society. Nuclear is not the most prominent family structure today, or through history. Prof richard namibia: family structures intact, but many of the parents would have relations with others in the community. He was imposing a particular structure of family which the namibians did not share.

Get access

Grade+20% off
$8 USD/m$10 USD/m
Billed $96 USD annually
Grade+
Homework Help
Study Guides
Textbook Solutions
Class Notes
Textbook Notes
Booster Class
40 Verified Answers

Related Questions

Write a summary of of this article below. You should write at least one paragraph.

ABSTRACT
Feminist theories in sociology reflect the rich diversity of general theoretical
orientations in our discipline; there is no one form of feminist theory. The development
of these theories over the last 25 years has only recently begun to
influence the mainstream theory canon, which has much to learn from their insights.
This chapter demonstrates why feminist versions of the following theory
types should be more fully integrated into mainstream sociological theory:
neo-Marxist, macro-structural, exchange, rational choice, network, status expectations,
symbolic interactionist, ethnomethodological, neo-Freudian, and social
role. Feminist standpoint theory, an epistemological critique of mainstream sociology,
is discussed at the beginning, and the chapter concludes with a brief
account of the newly developing effort to theorize the intersection of race, class,
and gender.
INTRODUCTION
The term “feminist theory” is used to refer to a myriad of kinds of works, produced
by movement activists and scholars in a variety of disciplines; these are
not mutually exclusive and include: (a) normative discussions of how societies
and relationships ought to be structured, their current inequities, and strategies to
achieve equity; (b) critiques of androcentric classical theories, concepts, epistemologies,
and assumptions; (c) epistemological discussions of what constitute
appropriate forms, subject matters, and techniques of theorizing from a feminist
perspective; and (d ) explanatory theories of the relationship between gender and

various social, cultural, economic, psychological, and political structures and
processes. Much of this work is explicitly interdisciplinary in inspiration and
intended audience. To complicate matters further, there is no consensus on the
exact meaning of the word “feminist,” which makes it difficult to distinguish
with precision between theoretical material that pertains to gender (e.g. Parsons
1949, 1955, which no one would label feminist) and gender-related theory that
is specifically “feminist.” Finally, there is little consensus among feminist sociologists
about the basic theoretical questions that require an answer, resulting
in the proliferation of theories at a low level of abstraction that explain specific
phenomena (e.g. pay inequity), in addition to more abstract, general works.
To remain within the limits of one chapter, I confine this review in several
ways, beginning by excluding feminist theory that has not been produced or used
extensively by sociologists. While feminist theory is often defined as “womencentered”
(e.g. Lengermann & Niebrugge 1996:436; Smith 1979, 1987; Alway
1995), I use a definition that focuses more broadly on gender, yet maintains the
normative emphasis implied by all definitions of the term feminist, which thus
enables one to distinguish feminist from other gender-relevant theory.

Some feminists focus on those contemporary theories and texts that ignore
the contributions of feminist theories and the topic of gender and conclude that
feminist contributions remain largely ghettoized within our discipline (e.g.Ward
& Grant 1991, Alway 1995). My view is that, while progress has been made
in integrating feminist concerns and insights into the discipline’s theoretical
discourse, much work remains to be done. This chapter demonstrates the
abundance and variety of feminist theoretical insights that can and already have
to some extent contributed to a more robust theoretical understanding of social
life, one which reflects the centrality of gender in virtually all sociocultural
contexts. It also demonstrates that feminist theories emanate from, critique, and
revise the rich array of theoretical traditions that define our discipline. Space
limitations preclude much discussion of precisely how feminist theories can be
better integrated with mainstream ones. Rather, I focus attention primarily on
reviewing the central insights of feminist theories in order to better inform those
sociologists who may be unfamiliar with much of this body of work about the
rich array of theoretical ideas that are at their disposal.

EPISTEMOLOGICAL ISSUES
Much of the literature that is labeled “feminist theory” consists of epistemology
and epistemological critiques of “malestream” sociology. Its foundations reflect
several nonfeminist traditions, especially Marx’s and Mannheim’s discussions
of ideology, Foucault’s work on knowledge and power, and phenomenological
and ethnomethodological approaches, the exact mix of influences varying by
author. While this work makes important contributions to these traditions, for
two reasons I believe that it is a misnomer to call thiswork feminist epistemology
(or theory). First, the issues raised are not in any fundamental way different
from those raised by many scholars who haveworked in these traditions but have
not been interested specifically in women or committed to feminism. Feminists
extend their insights in important ways, but this does not constitute a uniquely feminist approach to sociology. Second, many women in sociology, whose
scholarship they and others consider as well within the feminist tradition, do
not agree with this perspective.
Feminist scholars in a number of disciplines critique what they define as
mainstream, “masculinist,” “objectivist,” and “positivist” social science, and
develop a “feminist” alternative called standpoint theory. In sociology, the
two most widely cited are Dorothy Smith (especially 1987, 1990, also 1979,
1989) and Patricia Hill Collins (especially 1990, also 1986, 1989), whose basic
ideas constitute the focus of this section (see also Harding 1986, 1991). Where
Smith focuses on developing a “woman’s standpoint,” Collins’ work is directed
at an Afrocentric feminist standpoint epistemology. The Issue of Essentialism
Feminist standpoint theory, which is highly attuned to reification committed by
mainstream sociologists, cannot avoid reifying the genders. While Smith and
Collins explicitly recognize considerable variation among women (and presumably
men) in their experiences and consciousness, their own logics, and
many times wording, make it clear that they assume that there are overarching,
gender-specific standpoints; they could not otherwise talk about a “masculine”
form of discourse. In addition, Collins explicitly cites such feminist theorists
as Gilligan (1982) and Chodorow (1978, also 1974), who argue that the
genders are fundamentally different in their moral reasoning and capacities
for/commitments to interpersonal relationships.
Positing dichotomous gender differences that are treated as transcultural and
transhistorical is termed “essentialism,” a view that has substantial currency
among feminists in a variety of disciplines but is hotly contested in our own
(e.g. Lorber et al 1981, Coser 1989, Epstein 1988). The empirical evidence for
it is flawed, often based on small, nonrandom, American samples, and typically
finds only modest differences, along with extensive overlap, between the sexes.
Essentialist thinking converts differences of degree into differences of kind. The
presumed but often unstated origin of essential differences includes psychodynamics
rooted in the parental division of labor (Chodorow 1978) and biological
sex (Rossi 1977, 1984). It has become common for feminist scholars to recognize
within-gender categorical differences (e.g. race, class), but this awareness
of difference has often failed to preclude essentialist thinking about basic personality
and value orientations (e.g. the assumption that, regardless of other
differences, women are nurturant and oriented toward personal relationships,
while men are individuating and oriented toward abstract moral principles).
Given that the evidence suggests modest between-sex and considerable withinsex
differences on virtually all individual-level traits, a dichotomous gender
variable is theoretically useless when speaking of individual-level phenomena.
Explanations that begin by categorically attributing different characteristics
to women and men—cognitive, emotional, relational, and/or behavioral—not
only exaggerate differences in the distribution of such traits by gender, they also
implicitly treat these variables as dichotomous rather than continuous.

Objectives:

Ý· Learn how individuals contribute to teamwork

Ý· Experience some of the features of group work and teamwork

Ý· Understand what managers and organizational developers do to transform

Ý· groups into teams

Ý· Articulate the tangible benefits (both quantitative and qualitative) of

Ý· high-performing teams

Ý· Finish with an interest in learning more about these concepts and

Ý· techniques to apply what you learn

Background: For this assignment, you will plan and play a game with your family or friends, or at work based on the idea of the classic prisoner's dilemma. If you have had a class on game theory, you will be well aware of this concept. It forms the basis of many TV game shows. The prisoner's dilemma was illustrated in Truman Capote's book, "In Cold Blood" concerning the 1959 robbery of a Kansas farmhouse by Perry Smith and Dick Hickock, who murdered their victims in order to eliminate the witnesses. After the men were captured, the police interrogated them separately. To get a confession, the police offered the men a reduced sentence for cooperating. Failure to cooperate would result in a death penalty charge for both.

In the prisoner's dilemma, if both parties cooperate they are mildly punished; if one betrays another, one is severely punished while the other goes free; and if both betray one-another, both are moderately punished. Can you think of settings where you work in which the organizational structure has created a prisoner's dilemma? Competition can (but does not necessarily) bring out conflict.

In game theory, there are non-cooperative and cooperative games. A non-cooperative zero-sum game has a definite winner and loser. For one to win, one must lose. We often think of politicking as an element of that. A cooperative game is where everyone who plays is better off for having played than not having played the game. That is not to say that everyone is equally well off, but simply better off than they were before playing. Hence, even in a cooperative game, some people will likely benefit more than others.

Instructions

  • Review in your textbook, the Big Five personality dimensions, pp. 82�84, and then consider the 3.1 Personality Insights inventory, pp. 89�91
  • Select four or five friends, coworkers, or family members and have them take the personality inventory
  • Plan and play a game with the participants
  • Write a 5-10 page paper that addresses the assignment questions below


As you plan and play your game, you will negotiate the type of game you want to play and your role in it. Strive to determine some personal characteristics of the game participants a head of time, or by observing them. Consider how the personal characteristics of the individuals in the game manifest themselves in the informal roles they assume during the planning and execution of the game.

For the purpose of this assignment, you will want both a cooperative and a competitive element. To do that, you can form several groups to compete and cooperate with each other, or you can have individuals in one group compete and cooperate. You can use rewards and/or punishments to create the competitive/cooperative motivations.



Evaluation: When groups are formed, we want to consider how organizational structures, processes, and situations impact on group motivation, politics, and goals achievement. Alignment of all of these structural, personal, and interpersonal components will help to ensure that the group will meld into a team. A defining feature of teamwork (versus group work) is cooperation!

One of the factors that affect cooperation is conflict. Conflict is defined as when someone perceives that his/her interests are opposed or negatively impacted by another. Conflict can at times produce positive results depending on the basis for the conflict and how the conflict is handled (functional conflict). The worst kind of dysfunctional conflict produces betrayal.

Note that team performance can be observed in how well the team coordinates their interdependencies, works efficiently, communicates, and accomplishes their mission. Consequently, as you implement your game, assess your players based on these factors and the informal roles they play.

After you have played the game, reflect on the personality assessments your participants took, and then consider how they planned and played the game.

Write a (5- 10) page analysis to address the following questions:

1. How well did the personality assessments reflect in the behaviors participants displayed during the game?

2. What do these assessments tell us about how we perceive ourselves versus how others perceive us?

3. What informal roles did participants assume during the game, and were they different from the planning portion from the playing portion of the exercise?

4. What did I learn about myself? For example, did the exercise show that you have characteristic ways of relating to others that are distinctive, or similar, to those the others? Did the exercise show that in a particular type of situation you acted in a particular way, or that when others acted in a particular way, you felt happy or anxious or angry, etc.?

5. What did I learn about someone else in the exercise? Did you see something new about them, such as "they seemed more capable than I imagined," or "inattentive when things were stressful?"

6. In playing your game, what could you have done to increase cooperative behaviors?

7. Based on your game experience, what are some of the key factors involved in gaining cooperation from people in a business setting?


8. How would you go about getting cooperation from a "difficult" co-worker? Give an example or scenario.



Please provide a unique type of game theory preferably instead of Mafia Game.


Text:

Organizational Behavior and Management 10th Edition

John Ivancevich, Robert Konopaske, Michael Matteson



Robatelli's Pizzeria Case StudyIntroduction

On the morning of October 31st, Elaine Black, Chief InformationOfficer at Robatelli's Pizzeria, was waiting for both Jim Saxton,database administrator, and Peter Greyton, operations manager, tocome to her office for a meeting. While waiting, Elaine wasthinking about the surge of telephone and Internet orders expectedto be received through the company's customer order center withinthe next 12 hours. Halloween had always been the most popular dayof the year for people in the greater Pittsburgh area to orderpizza from Robatelli's. There were 53 restaurant locations to servethese customers, but only one location to receive all of the ordersand forward them to the right restaurant. Elaine's thoughts wereinterrupted as Jim and Peter entered her office. The followingconversation took place: ELAINE Well, guys, it's here again, ourbiggest day of the year. Not only is Halloween a busy day, but wehave the upcoming day after Thanksgiving, the week beforeChristmas, and Super Bowl Sunday. Can our current computer system'sinfrastructure and people keep pace with the orders we expect? JIMI think our systems are all running at peak performance. Weshouldn't have any computer concerns for today or those other busydays. PETER Everyone in the customer order center is focused onmaking sure that our customers get their pizzas as ordered. We haveplenty of people scheduled to work tonight, so we're good to go.ELAINE Terrific. But every time we face one of these peak salesdays, I start wondering about the long-term capacity andeffectiveness of our computer systems. Jim, we need to think longterm about our computer system. I was just reading an article thatI'd like you to take a look at. It's about Anheuser-Busch Companiesand their use of data mining. JIM I do agree with you, Elaine; weshould always be thinking about how newer IT systems can help us.Could you e-mail me the link to the article? ELAINE Sure, and Iwould like you to think about how we might use the same approach inour business. Peter, your order center people are doing a greatjob, but again there's something I'd like us to think about in thelong run. As you know, we now have to manually enter all customerorder center sales and store sales into our general ledger (GL). Ithink we could improve a lot of things if those sales areautomatically fed into our GL software. Why don't you think aboutany advantages you see for an automatic interface, and we'll lookat the costs compared to those advantages. How's that sound? PETERI'll do that. I'll give it some thought and work on a report aboutan automatic interface between our GL software and the point ofsale systems in our restaurants as well as the phone and Internetsales. How soon do you want to meet again to look at these issues?ELAINE Let's say, in two weeks at the same time. As Jim and Peterleft her office, Elaine continued to think about the features ofthe company's accounting information systems and whether or notdata extracted from these systems could facilitate the multipleneeds of the company. The focus had always been on providingaccurate financial accounting information from the variouslocations; however, the company's aggressive growth strategiesmeant increased emphasis on the system's ability to analyzedetailed customer information that could be translated intoincreased sales opportunities. Elaine knew the challenges theyfaced could very well affect the company's ability to maintain itscompetitive advantage. She realized that her department mustcontinually improve the company's information systems to help itachieve growth strategies. Operating state-of-the-art systems wasimperative to position the company to execute those growth plans.However, she was concerned about the possibility that restrictionsof the current information systems could actually prevent thecompany from doing what it wanted to do. Allowing restrictivesystems to prevent them from achieving business strategies was arisk that Elaine would not tolerate! Background Robatelli'sPizzeria is a great American success story. Started by DinoRobatelli in the 1960s, the business impetus was a family pizzarecipe. Introduced to the public at a church festival inPittsburgh's Little Italy, Robatelli's pizzas are now a recognizedtradition in the Greater Pittsburgh area. A full menu and localexpansion have led to its growing popularity over the years andhave helped it achieve nearly 50 percent of the area market share.Annual sales now exceed $100 million. Following is a timeline ofmilestones in the company's history: 1962 Dino and Gloria Robatellicontributed $500 and the family pizza recipe to a partnership thatopened the first Robatelli's Pizzeria. 1965 The Robatellis boughtout their business partners. 1967 The first Robatelli's franchiseopened. 1971–77 Dozens of new Robatelli's franchises openedthroughout the surrounding region. 1983 Home delivery servicebegan. 1992 A central, one-number calling system for allrestaurants was launched. 2003 Internet ordering began. The first“prototype pizzeria” opened. Today A total of 53 locations are inoperation.

Review the Robatelli's Pizzeria Case Study. Considering thenature of the relationship between Robatelli's Pizzeria home officeand its franchise owners, the company may be quite vulnerable totheft or fraudulent financial reporting committed by thesefranchise owners. I

n 700 to 1,050 words, discuss the following: Describe threecomponents of the fraud triangle and how each would relate to afranchise owner's likelihood to defraud Robatelli's Pizzeria.Identify three types of fraud to which Robatelli's Pizzeria may besusceptible.

Indicate whether the fraud is classified as management fraud,employee fraud, vendor fraud, customer fraud, or computer fraud foreach.

Suggest an internal control that could be implemented to preventor detect the potential fraud for each. Design a 5- to 6-bulleteditem code of ethics for Robatelli's Pizzeria. You may find guidanceby searching the Internet for examples.