“Racial and Socioeconomic Inequity in the Spatial Distribution of LGBTQ Human Services: an Exploratory Analysis of LGBTQ Services in Chicago” by Rosentel Kris; VandeVusse Alicia; Hill, Brandon J examines the intersectionality between members of the LGBTQIA+ community, people of color, and people from low socioeconomic status. This text focuses on members of these groups that reside in the area of Chicago. This article placed an emphasis on the distribution of programming tailored specifically towards members of the LGBTQIA+ community. Geocoding was the method used to conduct this research and it revealed that there was a disproportion between the amount and quality of LGBTQIA+ supportive programs in less affluent neighborhoods. Additionally, the neighboorhoods that lacked these programs were comprised of mostly Black and Latino families.
Rosentel, VandeVusse, and Hill published this work with the intent of impacting the equity built around LGBTQIA+, people of color, and people from low socioeconomic status. By doing so they appropriately address the lack of career based programs in the neighboorhoods theses people live in. This source helps further my research by focusing in on intersectionality and provides direct causation for low employment amongst members of the LGBTQIA+ community. I plan on using this source to support my ideas with regard to the importance of equity and the role of city officials in the distribution of resources.
Rosentel, K., VandeVusse, A., & Hill, B. J. (2019). Racial and Socioeconomic inequity in the spatial distribution of LGBTQ Human SERVICES: An exploratory analysis of LGBTQ services in Chicago. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 17(1), 87–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-019-0374-0
2. All of the responses to “The subtle sexism of your open office plan” added to the impacts of an open office space, however Emily’s response was not one that I had considered before. Emily has anxiety and felt as if she had nowhere to go during her panic attacks as a result of the office layout. When she finally spoke up about her concern to the other 2 female coworkers they shared similar feelings toward the design of the workplace. Stories like these demonstrate the need for mental health awareness and diversity in the workplace. If there had been more female workers then women like Emily amd her coworker would have been more likely to speak up about their grievances. Additionally, if there would have been more research into the effect office design has on mental health, then issues like these would likely never happen in the first place.
Alcalde-Rubio, L., Hernández-Aguado, I., Parker, L.A. et al. Gender disparities in clinical practice: are there any solutions? Scoping review of interventions to overcome or reduce gender bias in clinical practice. Int J Equity Health19, 166 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-020-01283-4
This article, titled Gender disparities in clinical practice: are there any solutions? Scoping review of interventions to overcome or reduce gender bias in clinical practice, revolved around the authors research trying to determine if there are any possible solutions to the gender biases that exist in the medical world. To figure out if there are viable results, the researchers included and compared studies that had implemented various potential solutions and perused the collected data to reach their conclusions. The studies varied according to health issues, country, description of intervention, etc. There were 22 different types of interventions being researched and most of them had varying successes in attempting to make the healthcare field less gender biased, but four of the studies were unable to accomplish this.
I think this article focused more on the potential solutions for ways to intervene in the gender bias that permeates the healthcare field, but it did not go into detail about what each of these studies did. To incorporate this article into my research, I am going to include it in the end to prove that there are ways in which the gender gap can be narrowed, the correct interventions just have to be pursued in order to help.
2. I chose to expand on Emily’s response to “The Subtle Sexism of Your Open Office Plan” because she speaks about how her experiences working in the open office environment escalated her anxiety due to the extreme lack of privacy at her work. Instead of having private spaces, the entire facility lacked any kind special areas where a worker could be alone even if it was just for a few minutes. Emily realized after a few months that all of her female coworkers also experienced this and that all of them had also found a private space near their office building where they could find privacy. This response really illustrated the experiences women have in the open office concept regarding mental health. The author of the article spoke about how the glass offices with no privacy made female workers feel as though they are under a microscope and Emily’s experience confirmed that. Mental health is something that should be taken much more seriously and if most women cannot even feel safe and comfortable at work, then the open office concept should not be considered a good thing.
Nuru-Jeter, A. M., Williams, T., & LaVeist, T. A. (2014). Distinguishing the race-specific effects of income inequality and mortality in U.S. metropolitan areas. International journal of health services : planning, administration, evaluation, 44(3), 435–456. https://doi.org/10.2190/HS.44.3.b
This article immediately establishes that there is a relationship between level of income and mortality rates. Socioeconomic position (SEP) is the strongest predictor of individual & population health status. Because BIPOC face monetary inequalities in the workplace due to structural and individual racism, they also disproportionately experience negative health outcomes. In other words, the authors examine how race influences these other variables. Within this article, there is a study that includes powerful findings regarding disparities and the impacts on BIPOC.
I think I could reference multiple sections of this article to further my argument. It includes explanations as well as a study regarding disparities within the realm of income levels and health status. Additionally, it also touches upon racial residential segregation and concentrated poverty which is another relevant social concept in this discussion.
2. I thought that the letters were sad to read, but important experiences to share. These letters provided me with a new perspective on sexism in the workplace. I never considered the architecture or office set up as a way to foster even more oppression towards women. Since I am a young girl almost at the age where I will enter Corporate America, this will definitely be something I keep in mind. I agree that sexism is prevalent in the workplace because my experience in a restaurant confirms it. A new perspective I would like to bring to the conversation would be about how women are treated in the food service industry. I have encountered extremely uncomfortable comments about my appearance and have had to ask coworkers to get out of my personal space/not touch me. The actions from some of the males in a restaurant is completely inappropriate and upsetting. Because these situations can be so so awkward, it can be hard to stop it. I have found myself freezing up because I do not know how to respond to a situation.
My research on how to make workplaces more equitable and inclusive of Black workers led me to an enlightening report, Being Black in Corporate America, An Intersectional Exploration from non-profit think tank Coqual (formerly CTI). Researchers Pooja Jain-Link, et. al, take us on a tour of the “Black experience” at work. They explore statistics on Black representation in Corporate America. The dismally low percentages (8% overall and .08% for Fortune 500 CEOs) do not correlate with college graduation rates of Black Americans, which leads to the false perception that there are a short supply of qualified Black people available to fill corporate positions. We are shown how the few Black professionals that have been hired, perceive their lack of prospects for advancement into upper management, despite being more than qualified and even more ambitious. The report also notes Black folks’ perceptions on having little access to senior leaders. The data backs up their suspicions. 65% of Black professionals report being very ambitious vs 53% of white professionals. The researchers also provide us with an examination of Black workers’ experiences compared to other underrepresented groups. Consequently, the report uncovers the higher rates in which Black people encounter microaggressions and racial prejudice compared to others (4 times as likely), as well as lower rates of allyship, particularly from white women. The data that was reported suggests that to counter this, many Black employees (particularly men) leave within two years or start their own businesses.
This report is an important addition to my conversation on Black equity and inclusion because it establishes a baseline for issues Black workers feel need to be addressed in Corporate America. It helps quantify, and in some cases legitimize through data, what many Black employees knew anecdotally was happening at their own workplace but were never sure to what extent it was happening to their cohorts in other locations. One of the most valuable aspects of this report is its analysis of what makes Black employees want to stay at a company along with meaningful solutions for transforming workplaces into inclusive and equitable spaces.
Response #3
Although it is true that open office plans disproportionately impact women, as stated in Katharine Schwab’s Fast Company article, Readers respond: Open offices are terrible for women, I would argue that Black employees are equally affected. I currently work in one of those fishbowl set-ups and I hate it. Our department used to be in another building where I had my own office. People frequently commented (sometimes snidely) about how nice it must be for me to have my own space. I came and went at my leisure with no commentary from my boss. I often went to long lunches with vendors who were trying to schmooze me for business. This practice was sanctioned by my company. Other times I traveled off-site to oversee a project. It was understood that I would not always be at my desk. Then my company decided to save money and merged our department into the main building. Our new space is a gigantic room where another person is literally seated in front of my desk and facing me. Another two people are to my right. I was one of the lucky ones because due to my seniority I got an aisle seat! Despite that “privilege”, I noticed a change. Every time I left my desk for even a short time, my boss (who has since moved on) wanted to know where I was. Sometimes she’d loudly ask my co-workers if they knew where I’d gone. If she saw me leaving, she wanted to know exactly when I’d be back. When the entire team was scheduled to go to a meeting, she singled me out publicly to inform me that there was a meeting I needed to get to. As a matter of fact, she began requiring me to email her all of my meetings for the day, every day. Conversely, when the young white women on my team went to lunch together (not for business), they would sometimes be gone for two hours, yet my boss never uttered a peep. I asked my colleagues if they had to provide our boss with their daily meeting schedule. They did not. There is only one other Black person in the same room as me. I’ve noticed that people have a habit of loudly saying things like “Where’s David?” “He’s still not back?” Meanwhile, an Asian woman and white men on his team were frequently gone, and nothing was said. When I changed my hairstyle, the whole office would start a discussion about it. When the news of yet another Black person being murdered by police surfaced, we had to sit in an open space and mask our grief for eight hours. There is no private place to go to process such abhorrent events. Even if there was such a place, our whereabouts were monitored. David and I stand out in the room, and when we’re not there, that stands out too. I imagine this could be the same experience for other Black employees.
In the Ted-Talk “INCLUSION over Diversity” Kenyona Matthews drew on her own experience being a member of a marginalized group in her predominately white university. Throughout the video, Kenyona directly forms a connection between her success in this university and the universities efforts to create an inclusive environment for all its students. As she provides insight into her experience prior to the schools adoption of more inclusive practices, it is evident that once this shift occurred, Kenyona’s motivation increased greatly. She even mentions that when she saw the institution actively working towards becoming inclusive through things like funding African American history courses she felt valued and seen which reflected into her school work because her grades began to rise. When she went to Law school she was met with an entirely different environment which was not as accepting to Black people. She mentioned that by her second year, a large majority of her Black classmates had left since they felt like they didn’t belong there.
This ted-talk is very important for my research because it is the most informative primary source that I have found. In my opinion Kenyona explained everything very clearly, I liked how she explained the differences from her PWI and her high school which had a majority population of minority students. She was also able to explain the differences in how she felt prior to the adoption of inclusive practices and after, and then she went on to explain the differences from and inclusive environment to her experience in law school. This all helps my research a lot since it is essentially showing the difference in a diverse environment and an inclusive one, through Kenyona’s experience. I also think it is very helpful that she spoke about the change in her motivation at school and how it was connected to the increase of inclusion in the school. This relates to the article “The Inclusion Dividend: Why Investing in Diversity and Inclusion pays off” because it supports the idea that the more diverse and inclusive an organization is the higher their success rates. This is because the employees will feel valued which results in them doing their best work. A very important part of this was towards the end when she said “diversity will always give us space in the rooms but it leaves no room for our thoughts and out ways of life. Inclusion will change our rooms. Inclusion will make sure we all have a seat and voice and it makes it so that once you hear the voice you have to act and make some changes” this gives me a good explanation of the difference between Diversity and Inclusion which is a part of my research as well. Diversity does not guarantee Inclusion, which also means it alone is not enough to make sure a company/organization is successful because when people do not feel like they have a voice or a seat at the table, they will not be able to work their best.
2) In Lauren T’s response she mentions that she felt so uncomfortable in her workspace that she would strategize different paths to the bathroom so she didn’t have to pass by a specific male coworkers desk. She mentions that this passive sexism prevented her and other women from feeling confident, supported and safe in their workplace and this was not the type of conditions that would help a woman grow her career. I think this is very upsetting that these women come to work, which is a place they should feel valued and respected, and they are experiencing this degrading behavior. Lauren also mentions that the men who are the perpetrators of this do not acknowledge how difficult they are making the experience of the women the work with. She says that since she works in a male dominated agency, she feels like if she brings it up she will be labeled as “the complainer or too sensitive”. She then goes on to say that she doesn’t believe that the open office is to blame but rather the sexist men who are not willing to reflect on their behavior to see how it is affecting their female co workers. By this statement, Lauren is introducing a new perspective, the open office merely exposes the true nature of these male colleagues. The new question is what can be done to prevent this type of behavior and Lauren suggest you the adoption of employee training plans which serve to make all people in the office feel comfortable.
In the journal article created by Cornell’s psychologists Ceci and Williams along with Cornell researcher Barnett, titled “Women’s Underrepresentation in Science: Sociocultural and Biological Considerations”, the authors attempt to comprehend the reason why an increasing number of women are pursuing STEM-related degrees, but the number of women in STEM-related jobs is not increasing as rapidly. To understand the reasons behind this, the authors hypothesized that a circular relationship exists between various factors, the most important being biological sex. Biological sex in the article claims to be a critical factor since it impacts everything from hormones, thoughts on the tradeoff between career and family values, even SAT scores. To back up this theory, the article utilizes separate studies and datasets. The authors dive into other reasons to explain why more women do not enter into math-intensive careers, including motivations, historical context, and cultural factors.
Analysis
This article is like none of the others that I have read. Instead of just explaining the impact that society has on why more women do not enter into STEM-related careers, it examines biological reasons. The perspective that this article takes overall is more of a scientific view than a social perspective. I see myself using it to focus on these biological elements rather than the social ones that every other article references. This article relates to my other sources because they all attempt to explain why more women are not involved in STEM-related careers. It just takes the research a step further than the other sources that I have found because it uses scientific evidence to back up its claim. I must use the biological elements referenced, the statistics that the article provides to help back up my thoughts and other research. Overall, it will be crucial to use the scientific data to examine my question as to why under-representation matters to everyone and the reasoning behind why it exists to determine possible solutions to the issue.
Ceci, Stephen J., et al. “Women’s Underrepresentation in Science: Sociocultural and Biological Considerations.” Psychological Bulletin, vol. 135, no. 2, 2009, pp. 218–261., doi:10.1037/a0014412.
Response to #3
In recent discussions of subtle sexism, Katharine Schwab presents a controversial issue on whether open office workspaces provide more benefits than costs. On one hand, some argue that the open space encourages engagement and breaks open the chain of command thoughts. From this perspective, these individuals argue that the benefits outweigh the costs and therefore open office spaces should be utilized. On the other hand, however, others argue that the open office space violates people’s right to privacy and encourages subtle sexism. In the words of Schwab, “This kind of all-glass, no-privacy environment leads to a subtle kind of sexism, where women are always being watched and judged on their appearances, causing anxiety for many employees.”. According to this view, open office spaces cause harm towards women within the organization and would therefore do the opposite of their original intent, make for a tense environment where women do not feel safe.
My own view is that Schwab fails to address some of the solutions to the issue at hand. Schwab is right that those open office spaces violate the right to an individual’s privacy. I will be extending the argument by providing my own solution to the problem. Many organizations are beginning to understand the benefits that meeting pods/quiet pods hold for workers within the organization. Not only do they provide a space for an employee to relax without having to listen to the loud and rambunctious open office space, but it allows for privacy. The women in the article address that in their current open office space, there is nowhere to go besides the restroom for an escape from others watching them. A meeting pod would allow for a location where females could go to work without having to worry about others watching them for however long they need away from the open office space. Obviously, it is difficult once you enter a lease or commitment for a new office to leave that behind due to monetary constraints or legal contracts, but meeting pods provide a solution to the problem. With all of the hyperlinks provided in the article, I am surprised that Schwab did not address what other companies have been doing for a long time, and how pods have benefitted their employees. Other alternatives could include what Google has begun to do in its offices, which is that they introduced inflatable walls.
Although I believe that it is important to create a sense of privacy in the workplace, I do also believe that having open areas where people can communicate and engage with each other is critical to the success of an organization. Therefore, I believe that a hybrid workplace, where there are 50% meeting pods and 50% cubicles/open areas where people can engage would be the best solution to the issue. For my TSIS templates, I used one from the introduction in the book, along with another from chapter five. I feel as though I have become more comfortable with using them which is great. Below I have attached some links to information on meeting pods and Google’s inflatable walls.
In “Applying artificial intelligence: implications for recruitment,” Ashwani Kumar Upadhyay and Komal Khandelwal provide an overview of the ways artificial intelligence (AI) is being used in the hiring process and discuss the advantages for firms as well as job candidates. The authors are associate professors in strategic management at universities in India and have recently co-authored a book, AI Revolution in HRM: The New Scorecard, which provides an in-depth look at this rapidly evolving field. In their article, they highlight the many advantages of AI for HR, including helping recruiters process enormous volumes of data, screening social media to make sure a candidate’s values align with the organization, and matching personality types to certain positions. AI saves time on routine processes and allows HR staff to focus on high value work. The authors are clear that AI is good at identifying talent but many activities such as rapport-building and salary negotiation still need to be done by humans. The authors also highlight benefits for candidates, such as quicker rejections so job hunters can move on and functions that can direct candidates to other positions that might be a better fit. The authors also point out that AI can be intelligently programmed to avoid unconscious bias, and that AI technology, like other technologies, will get better over time.
This article will be useful to my project because it concisely describes the allure of AI for HR in practical terms. I am building a case to support the idea of slowing down AI implementation in HR and imposing legal restrictions because diversity and inclusion efforts will be harmed, so I need a source or two that advocate for the implementation of AI and that discuss the benefits. Human resource departments are overwhelmed with data to review, candidates to screen, and endless routine interactions and tasks. In some ways, firms are racing against each other to find the right employees, so the firms with the better technology and faster processes may win. This does not mean that AI is or will be perfect in the near term, especially when it comes to issues like diversity and inclusion. However, the authors make a solid argument for implementing these systems and express optimism about the future. In this way, they provide a good counterpoint to my argument.
The readers who responded to Katharine Schwab’s article on open offices understandably have a right to feel offended when a coworker harasses them, even in a subtle way. Many of the situations the women described sounded not only uncomfortable but creepy, and I can see why many of them wanted to leave their jobs. But when looking for the real causes of the problem, I think it’s important to separate the environment (which doesn’t have a mind of its own and doesn’t act) from the people in the environment (who do). In other words, I don’t think the environment creates the organizational culture, the people do and if you want to change the culture you have to work on the people.
It saddened me to read that many of the women made changes to their appearance and behavior. In a world that is increasingly aware of sexism and sexual harassment because of movements like “Me Too,” I think an open office might be the perfect environment to bring a subject like sexism in the workplace out in the open. With everything literally out in the open, what is holding companies back from educating all employees about the negative impact of sexism? Policies can be set and explained to curb behavior that makes people uncomfortable and to encourage more people to report sexist behavior when they see it happening. Extending this idea further, I would say that women do not have to fight this battle alone. There are many men who are willing to fight it with them, and men who aren’t doing enough can be encouraged to do more. “How Men Can Confront Other Men About Sexist Behavior” by W. Brad Johnson and David G. Smith shows them how they can get started.
In the journal article Intersectionality: Multiple Inequalities in Social Theory, by Sylvia Walby, Jo Armstrong, and Sofia Strid, the idea of intersectionality, mostly in regards to women, is explored with critical thinking, which offers solutions to the interconnected dilemmas women face daily, as well as systematically. The authors explore scholarly input from Crenshaw, McCall, and Hancock to understand commonalities between all of their arguments that could offer analysis as to why multiple inequalities take place for women. All of their arguments share inclusivity when it comes to women and disregarding generalizations put on them. However, the authors note that many dilemmas are left unsolved, even with Crenshaw, McCall, and Hancock’s input. The first problem involves figuring out how to address the relationship between structural and political intersectionality while not dismissing the other and instead focus on their connections. Structural intersectionality is when unequal social groups are considered, and political intersectionality regards political and systematic projects. The next dilemma asks how we address the relations between the inequalities without dismissing the powerful parts? Another problem regards balancing stability and fluidity, while the next wonders how to address class since all debates regarding intersectionality think of it differently. The authors offer solutions to each of these remaining problems, which all are similar because they all propose that one has to isolate each issue, take away its “status,” and think of all of them equally. This way, one can see the issues at hand more clearly and constitute a new critical way of thinking.
Analysis
This source is crucial to my research because it focuses on what problems still have to be fixed rather than listing success regarding intersectional thinking. By doing so, it leaves room for different perspectives and ideas to form different solutions. This is where preconceived bias can come in. With more research about bias and prejudice, I can see if this information can fill the gaps. The solutions the authors have mentioned are more complex than I gave in my summary paragraph, one being the solution for fluidity and stability. The solution reads, “The way forward is to recognize that concepts need to have their meaning temporarily stabilized at the point of analysis, even while recognizing that their social construction is the outcome of changes and interactions over time and to note the historically varied construction of these categories.” This solution is critical for my research because by stabilizing the meaning of a concept, one can see how it naturally is. There are no preconceived opinions or subconscious biases. There can hopefully be no underlying prejudice as well. The second part of the solution states that one can still recognize that social construction has caused changes and injustices, hence pre-conceived judgments. If people can start seeing a corrupt concept for how it is, without bias getting in the way, they can understand how it was historically constructed and maybe even dismantle it.
Response t0 #2:
In Kristin W’s response to the original article, she essentially notes that there are no ways to avoid the pressures of an open office, even if you tried. She states that in her experience, women would go to work early to get a seat close to the wall not to be stuck in the middle of the aisle. However, even if the women got wall seats, the men then had a perfect view to watch them. It made me honestly sad to know that these women could not even slightly avoid the poorly laid-out office. Not only was the layout awful, but the sexism revolved around it. Additionally, Kristin mentions the pressures of dressing nicely in an open office, which would create unpaid overtime at the end of the day because the men were still talking about work. By this point, too, I can already imagine the exhaustion the women have had from their days. Kristin’s writing illustrates a cycle- she notes that women can barely start their day off right in the workplace and can barely end it well. She does not necessarily mention the in-between parts of the day, but with the “cycle” being apparent, readers can certainly assume it is not so great either. Kristin W’s writing essentially demonstrates the inability of women to make their situation better because it was not designed to be changed; men have designed the office, therefore controlled by men. The beginning and ends of their days revolve around a man, whether that being watched from the aisle, expected to dress nicely for them, as well as staying late to work because the men haven’t left yet.
1. An individual can feel shame for being laughed at for having a disability (Gray, Pakinson, & Dunbar, 2015).
Reference:
Gray, A. W., Parkinson, B., & Dunbar, R. I. (2015). Laughter’s influence on the intimacy of self-disclosure. Human Nature: An Interdisciplinary Biosocial Perspective, 26(1), 28-43.
It is suggested by current research theory that laughter works to build relationships between people. Therefore, laughter should be connected to interpersonal connection important to the development of relationships. To develop close social bonds, disclosing behaviors are seen as a way to help this process. It is thought that the act of laughing could momentarily reduce a laugher’s reluctance to disclose personal information. In this experiment, characteristics of self-disclosing statements produced by those who had watched previously one of three video clips differed in the extent to which they elicited laughter and positive affect. The results show that disclosure intimacy is significantly higher after laughter than in the control group. This suggests that this effect may be due, in part, to laughter itself. On the other hand, the research further indicates that an individual can feel shame for being laughed at for a disability.
This will support my project as far as the stigma of having a disability. If individuals have a disability (whether it is invisible or not) and have been the subject of laughter or bullying this can have a long-term impact on their willingness to disclose this to others. The concept of feeling shame regarding a potential flaw in their ability to perform a job could make an individual silent on any disability related issues even if they could assist them in job performance. This supports the previous research that suggests individuals with invisible disabilities are concerned about the stigma of revelation.
2. Brigitte D. had some differing thoughts on the ideas in the original article “The subtle sexism of your open office plan”. While she initially agreed that there is a level of self-consciousness in the open plan, there was a sense that this was a temporary situation. Brigitte herself was able to develop the ability to ignore the situation. However, it was the sensory overload that was problematic due to the open office plans. It was so severe that it got to a point where she could barely function and concentrate. As we consider individuals with sensory processing difficulties (either small or more significant), they can have a substantial impact on an employee’s success. For instance, many autistic adults are unable to concentrate in an open-plan office because of the background noise? Brigitte used numerous examples such as a man who drummed erratically on his desk, while another one whistled. At another place the sound of the dinging microwave and opening of the refrigerator combined with another employee who utilized too much perfume every morning.
Sensitivity to noise at work can be very erratic, especially if you work in an environment where certain times of the day are busy and other times are quiet. Without a place to support employees with auditory sensitivities, this type of work environment is challenging at best.
Although Brigitte spoke up at work, it appears the situation was not resolved. That speaks volumes for the state of how employees are handled with valid concerns. The fact that she transferred from position to position with various organizations is troubling. Would it have made a difference if a man had a problem with the same situation? At the end of her post is the final comment, “In all my career I saw two setups that promoted productivity, both were in having an individual office space temporarily, during construction of a new cubicle setup”…and there you have it.
In the article “Associations between sexual orientation discrimination and substance use disorders: differences by age in US adults” the authors discuss the study they did to see what trends there were between the age of adults with substance use disorders and how much sexual orientation discrimination they experienced. They found that US adults who are a part of sexual minorities are twice as likely to meet the criteria for many of the different substance use disorders (SUD). They saw that there are different factors that contribute to SUDs than just age. One being minority stress because it increases exposure to chronic stressors that are related to SUDs and other negative mental health affects.
This source connects to my other sources because they all focus on the main point of my argument, LGBTQ+ discrimination. What I have made sure to focus on when finding different sources is that they all discuss a different aspect of discrimination. This article focus substance abuse disorders and what, if any, the trend is between the different abuses, sexuality, and age; where the main cause is discrimination. It comes from the perspective of five professors who conducted this study to better understand the different abuse disorders that 20 million US adults have. I plan to use the data and results from this article to further discuss the effects of sexual discrimination on people and for evidence on the idea that it needs to come to an end.
2.
In the response titles “A Lack of Privacy makes Anxiety worse”, Emily emphasizes the effects that working in an open office had on her anxiety. She is agreeing with the original article and is giving an example of what she experienced in an open office and what she would do to accommodate herself and her needs. She also includes how she encouraged the company to change their office set up in her exit interview so that future employees do not experience the same things that she did. I feel that this was a productive way to address the issue that she faced because she not only explained it and explained what she did to help herself, she also told the company how to fix it and noted that she was not the only female in the office who felt like this.
