Response to Judith Jordan
What did you find to be the most exciting or challenging concept in your readings regarding Hofstede’s dimensions of culture? I agree with you that the aspect of masculinity and feminity is exciting on the one hand but quite confusing, on the other side. Hofstede’s dimension of masculinity and feminity explains the different roles of men and women in society (Hosfedes 170). I agree with you that in most countries, such as the United States, there is a big gap between men and women’s roles. Men are associated with heroism, assertiveness, and success.
In contrast, females are exploited at work and are supposed to handle lighter duties like caring for the young ones, be cooperative, and caring for the week. In other words, it focuses on how societies comply with is values and traditional gender roles. However, in some countries like Japan, there are no clear roles of males and females as women also work in male-dominated professions.
Reply to Yolanda Scott
What did you find to be the most exciting or challenging concept in your readings regarding Hofstede’s dimensions of culture?
I agree with you that the dimension of power distance is challenging to understand since what the concept explains is contrary to the actual practice. The aspect suggests there exists some inequality in low and high context cultures. In low context cultures such as the United States, privacy and autonomy are emphasized. At the same time, in high context cultures such as China, there is interdependence and inclusion of people in the society regardless of social class (Jandt 168). Power distance is evident in the United States, for instance, the segregation in urban areas where the wealthy live with the homeless in the same city. Most organizations demand equality for all their employees, whereas the seniors have more privileges compared to the junior workers.