Influence and Social Networks

Social networks exist no matter where we go and sometimes it is virtually impossible to find an end to the numerous connections between different groups of people meaning that ultimately, characteristics possessed by one group of people may also be possessed by those in a group of people in which they have never met.  This means that we may be having an influence on people's lives everyday who we have never even spoken to.  The people that we are surrounded by have the largest impact on our personalities and habits.  From the time we are born, who we are molded into is influenced by our parents, guardians, family, etc.  As talked about in class, "liking" is one of the main influences that an individual can have on another.  The two main points that stood out to me were physical attractiveness and similarity because I believe they do have a huge impact on our relationships with others.  Whenever someone walks into a room full of people that they have never met before, the two factors that decide who they interact with most are similarity and physical attractiveness.  It is much more comforting for a person to meet people who look/dress as they do therefore we naturally are drawn to those that are similar to us in both looks and personalities.  The same goes for choosing role models.  Most times, people are going to attempt to look up to those whom they can see themselves resembling most.

Gender in the Workforce

Sandberg brings up a vaild point in todays corporate gender inequality. She blames women and their lack of confidence for the discourse in women represented in higher positions of the world. I agree with her to some extent, women are underepresented in the workforce partically due to thier own lack of conifdence. However the gap is so large that this single contributing factor cannot be the only underlying cause of women misrepresented in the workforce. In my opinion there are two additional factors that overwhlemingly contribute to the small amount of women that hold high positions in politics, corporate America, and other prestegious positions.
        The first factor is the interest of women in general. We hear about this in early childhood education, they call it gender rolls. Little girls tend to play with dolls and like coloring books, while little boys like to play sports and fight G.I. Joes (there are exceptions). The same idea can be applied to the straifcation of women in the workforce. If you walked into a college and counted the number of women in business they would often be the minority. Not because they aren't smart enough for a business degree but because busniness simply doesnt interest them. On the other hand if you walked into an early childhood classroom women are the ovewrwhelimg majority because it is a topic that they find interest in and are more comfotable with.
         The second factor  is de facto segeration. In the 1950s women had little to no rights in the workplace; their job was to simply stay at home, cook the meals, and take care of the kids. Things changed as history progressed and now it is considered more acceptable for women to enter the workforce and as a result more women are taking the path as working citizens. Being a woman is conisdered a minority and as a result women are sometimes hired based on the fact that they are women. While sandberg brings up a good point that many women are more qualified for the positions that men are in, she states that they lack the social confidence to recieve the job. If they lack the confidence to recieve the job then they are not as qualified to be in the position they are aplpying for, thus making them a lesser candidate to their male coutnerpart. The women who are in positions of power are there simply because they had both the credentials and confidence to be there. The result of this selection process is a select few women who are very good at their jobs and develop a sense of prestige in the corporate world for their gender and women who are average and dont really impress, but whose presence gives future generations of women more confidence to join the work force. My point is this, yes women in the workforce might not be growing now and Sandberg may be able to cite a few years of sagninent numbers but this is due to the shift in responsibility that still is in the process of taking place. It has only been a few decades since women were seen as complete non factors in important matters and if you give it time and the numbers will continue to grow.
         So what do we do to solve it? Nothing. The reason women are not in the work force is either by their own choosing, the sluggish shift (but it is shifting) in social norms, and the lack of confidence they have for positions (which some of them are still getting over men). If you give it time and let the problem work itself out women will gain confidence and their numbers will increase naturally. Hopefully one day in the future we will get to a point where women and men are represented equally and then are judged equally for their positions.