Gender and Sexuality Chap 11 and Understanding Sexual Orientation

Understanding Sexual Orientation, written by Alfred Kinsey -
     is a passage which tries to describe the differences between a homosexual male and a heterosexual male.  Homosexual is when you are sexually attracted to someone of the same sex as yourself and heterosexual is when you are attracted to someone of the opposite sex. These two "classifications" is used to describe ones sexual preferences. In the middle of these two classifications is "bi-sexual", which are people who are attracted to both sexes, male and female. The passage than went in depth into how homosexual men are "supposed to" act. They're "suppose to be" feminine in their movements, have fine skin, are soft-spoken, artistically sensitive, "has teeth which are close to a female" (whatever that means) and less often becomes bald. These characteristics are used to describe a 'gay man' because it goes against what the gender roles of a man is suppose to be. The textbook definition for gender is, the socially constructed cultural expectations associated with women and men, and so the characteristics listed in the passage is what makes-up a gay man because 'ideally' a man shouldn't be sensitive, artsy, his teeth shouldn't be 'close to  females' and hard-spoken with deep voices.

    I think that the article is very biased. I know homosexual males that aren't feminine in their ways and you can't tell their homosexual until they actually admit that they are (OH AND THEIR TEETH DON'T LOOK LIKE A WOMEN'S, hahahaha). And if this author is saying this about men, what is saying about women that are homosexual? That in contrast homosexual women are manly? Big and buff? Wear baggy clothes and go bald faster then men? Like it just doesn't make sense. You can't categorize homosexuals and heterosexuals by personality characteristics. You will be very wrong, ALL OF THE TIME.

    The chapter speaks about how gender is socially constructed (p. 286-287) and how as men and women we have certain expectations that we have to meet to called male or female. I think that it's annoying that a girl can't wear blue and that a boy can't wear pink because male's and female's cant wear those colors. I don't think that there should rules on gender. I think that people should be comfortable enough to do and wear and act as they please. Society shouldn't shame those are homosexual and tell them that it's wrong to be homosexual and right to be heterosexual.

     Unfortunately, I know that none of this will change in my lifetime and me by myself, I can't change anything either. I just hope that one day, years from now people will realize that we should be free to do and like whom we please. I think that the society will be better as a whole and it'll take away these unwritten rules which causes stress and sometimes we can't pinpoint why we're stressed because the rules are so invisible. Hopefully, one day *crosses fingers*.

Chap 10 - Race and Ethnicity, The Power of Illusion and The Hispanic Dropout Mystery rate

Race - a category of people based on their phenotype (physical characteristics)
Ethnicity - shared cultural heritage, deriving from a common ancestry or homeland.

 "It's easy to be white." -  A student from the Video "The Power of Illusion; The Difference Between Us.

'Hispanic students drop out rate it 30%, which is 3x more than whites and 2x more then blacks.' - from The Hispanic Dropout Rate, written by Susan Headden.


One thing that this video, this chapter and this passage all have in common is that it points out that race and ethnicity exists in this world because we, as a society, have given it a meaning and definition for hundreds of years.

     The video points out the fact that years and years and years ago, we needed some way to "classify" people and group them so that we can tell the 'difference' amongst ourselves. Because it is much harder to do that with genetics, society decided to use our physical characteristics. The scientists of this time, Whites, who of course were the people who made this whole classification up, were formed by their society and used themselves as the 'dominant', 'better', 'right', 'upper', 'pure' classification and every other skin color that was categorized into a race was beneath them, with blacks being at the bottom. What they didn't know in the time that they were making these classifications is that in all scientific truth, there are HARDLY any differences between one human being and the next. Every couple of thousand nucleotides in our gene is different than the next person. In penguins, who almost all look like the next penguin, have 30% more differences than humans and fruit flies, have double the differences than that! But we don't put races to penguins or fruit flies, because "they're all the same".
     When there was a group of people found who were 'mixed', both whites and blacks, they were labeled "MONGRELS" and were isolated because they did not want whites to be mixed with blacks at all. It was a disgrace for a white person to have one blood of black blood in them, which of course brought up the "one-drop rule". If you had 'one drop' of black in you than you were categorized as black, not white.

   People also try to say that blacks are better in sports than whites are, but whites are better at playing music and instruments and are smarter academically than blacks. There is NO GENEs FOR ANY OF THESE TRAITS!!! One thing that stood out to me was when the video displayed Olympics videos from years ago and showed one Black Track runner who was accepted as being the best but his excuse was that "it was in his blood". There is NO gene for being a good runner. There are NO genes for being a good music player or for being smart or for being pretty or having light skin or dark skin. This is what I don't understand how do people NOT know this? How has this been accepted for so long when there is NO scientific proof that people are 'different' through their genes. Of course we are all going to look different and our skin color will range but because someone has more melanin in their skin giving them a darker color, they are considered less than some one with less melanin and is lighter toned. IN MY OPINION, IF YOU HAVE LESS MELANIN THAN SOME ONE WITH MORE MELANIN, THEN YOU HAVE MORE CHANCES OF DYING OF SKIN CANCER THEN THE OTHER PERSON, SO HOW IS THAT AN ADVANTAGE IN THE FIRST PLACE?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?! I just don't get it!

   One thing that stood out to me in the video was the test of the mitochondria DNA that is only passed from our mothers that the students had to do. It was very interesting to see that a white student was a 100% match to some one in West Africa and another country in Europe that wasn't white, but he had 3 differences in the DNA of some one from Ireland, which he thought he would be more closely rated too. Of the two black students, they had 12 differences between their DNA but one of the students only had 3 differences between him and another Asian classmate. I think that this was a good example of how we aren't that different at all and how you may be more closely related to some one of a different 'race' than some one of your own 'race'.

     In the reading, it pointed out that in 8 years, Hispanics will be considered the lowest minority, pushing blacks 'up' in the racial class system. It talks about how poverty plays a huge role in why kids are dropping out of high school. Some have to work to help their families, or have started their own families at a young age and so they have to work even more. Another problem that Hispanics face is language. Hispanic students who were not born in the US face a problem of language in school because they don't English. if their parents are from another country as well, then they most likely don't know English either, causing a hard time for that student in school. They are made fun of and teased because of their accents and are discouraged.

     I think that Race is so stupid. It angers me that people have to be "categorized" and judged based on their skin color. People aren't given equal opportunity's and are turned down from jobs and schools because they aren't at the top of the race classification, when that was man made! It can be unmade! It needs to be. It just makes no sense in my head. When I fill out applications I hate having to answer, 'Are you White[Caucasian]? Black [African American]? Asian? Pacific Islander? Latino/Hispanic? Native American?' -- and then when I check the 'Latino/Hispanic' box I have to then answer, "are you white Latino, black Latino or other?" I always hit OTHER and write in "CARAMEL".

Cause of death: Inequality & Chapter 9

Cause of Death: Inequality written by Alejandro Reuss, is an article about how social inequality in America causes death among certain racial groups and how education and income play a major role in how long people live. The author found that men with less than 12 years of education are more then twice as likely to die from chronic diseases (like heart disease or heart attack) and are more than three times as likely to die from a injury, compared to men who had 13 years or more of education. He also found that women with family incomes less than $10,000 are more than three times as likely to die of heart disease and three times as likely to die from diabetes, as opposed to those with a family income of $25,000 or more.
     The statistic that shocked me when I read it was that African Americans are more likely than whites to die of (*GET READY FOR THIS*), heart disease, stroke, lung, colon, prostate and breast cancer, all cancers combined, liver disease, diabetes, AIDS, accidental injury, and homicide. Pretty much saying that blacks will die of EVERYTHING in the book before a white person does. That just boggles my mind, the fact that a black person, who presumably will receive less education than a white person (just because of his/her skin color) will die due to anything in the cause of death book, before a white person is crazy to me! Where is this world is that right?!!?!?!?! I mean obviously here in the USA, but that's just so wrong.
     Another way that the article says that people are unequal is through health care. 1 out of every 6 Americans does not have health care, and of that 44% are poor people. Just the fact that they are poor makes them unequal to people who are wealthy and have money. Because they don't have health care, when they get sick they don't get seen by a doctor and this is why they end up dying faster than some one who has health care and is wealthier. The solution in my eyes is clear, if you are poor you should have health care because that way you have one good thing that you can depend on, a good doctor to make your life easier to bear. But of course in this equal country, that might never happen. The rich will continue to be rich and healthy and poor will continue to be unhealthy and die (excuse my bluntness but at this point I'm already upset and bothered).

    Chapter 9, Class and Global Inequality, helped me understand the differences of the classes more indefinitely. In the United States we have 4 main classes, Lower class (9%), Working class (45%), Middle class (45%) and Upper class (1%). Upper class people get their income (money received from sources such as wages and salaries as well as interests, dividends, and rent generated by wealth) from high paying salary jobs and bonuses, stocks and investments, real estates, and inheritance. Middle class people get their income from working powerful jobs, such as professors, doctors, lawyers, scientists and most business executives. The middle class people generally, have gone to college to build their middle class paying jobs and careers. Working class people get their incomes from jobs that usually make a product or provide a service and they earn hourly wages. All of these jobs require some skill, and some of these jobs include mechanics, electricians and technicians. The jobs in the working class that don't require skills can include jobs like working in fast food restaurants, retail sales clerk, daycare provider, etc. In the working class, there are some unions, which provide a little better wages, but they still struggle financially. The underclass (lower class) are those are chronically unemployed or briefly employed, and those who have no source of income at all.
    I think that my mother and I fall into the working class. My mom has been working for the city for over 30 years and I have been working and going to school since I was 16 years old, (I'm 20 now) and I've already gotten used to being overwhelmed and stressed all of the time. I work because I like to have my own money and I don't want to have to depend on my mother for money, which is already tight because of all the bills we have. Sometimes and I sit and wish that I was rich so that I wouldn't have to work and I can only focus on school. But then I see those kids that attend really good schools, that don't work, or never worked a day in their lives and I'm happy that I do have to work. They're usually bratty people, unhappy, and find that money is the only thing that keeps them motivated. Don't get me wrong, I loveeeeeeee my money and I'm sure I would love to get it and not even have to work for it, but I feel like working gives me something to do. It takes my mind off of other problems. It has made me responsible. And I am happy overall. Not many young adults can work 45 hours a week and take 5 classes and still pull off a 3.7 GPA, while still maintaining a social life. I also think that I have experiences that wealthier people won't ever ever receive, like working for something an achieving goals that you set for yourself and then meet them yourself, not achieving them because you have more opportunity's (to me that's cheating).
 

                                               

  

Extra Credit: TEDTALKSEDUCATION

This TedTalk completely had me speechless. I agree 100% with what each of the presenters spoke about and I think that their thoughts are right on the money (meaning the solutions that they are proposing ARE the answer to bettering our education system). 
 

     John Legend (an R&B singer) was the host and it was his first time on a television TV show. His opening statistic was shocking, which was: 1 out of every 5 kids drop out of High school before they graduate. 

     Rita Pearson, author of “Thinking on your feet: 10 lessons to be a master teacher”, is from Texas and she comes from a family full of teachers. She understands that some children drop out of school because of poverty, negativity, family situations but she feels that all of those students can be helped. One thing that stood out from her speech was when she said that she once had a colleague tell her, “They don’t pay me to like the kids, they pay me to teach a lesson, the kid should learn it, case closed.” This stood out to me because in my years of learning, I had plenty of teachers that have said this. I had a teacher tell me one time in high school, “I don’t care if you don’t listen to me because I get paid sitting here in this chair whether I am teaching you or not.” And sadly, this is the mentally of a lot of teachers.  

     Pearson also said that she thinks it is important to help build the self-esteem of her students. She shows encouragement to her students and she said that teaching should bring joy  and that students need a teacher that will empower them and make sure that as a student, you will make a different. 

     The next speaker was a teacher from San Francisco, Dr. Ramsey M. (I couldn’t catch his last name). Ramsey is a chemistry teacher and he showed a video in which one of students went home and did an experiment based on something that they had learn3ed that day in class. He said it is important to spark questions in your students and you want that creativity to take place so that the students will learn and remember, and want to learn more. 

     Angela Lee Duckworth is a psychologist from Pennsylvania who started out as a 7^th grade math teacher. She taught math based on the curriculum that was given to her and she didn’t really change it. She noticed that some kids passed and some didn’t and what made her curious was that those that were “smart” were sometimes the ones that weren’t doing so well and those who were “less” smart were doing better. She was convinced that all of her kids can learn and so she set off to figure out what is the difference between the “smart” kids and the “not-so” smart kids. During her studies she asked the question, “Who is successful and why?” and came up with the conclusion that GRIT was the answer. Grit is passion, stamina, desire, sticking with your future and wanting to achieve. Student who had grit are the ones who were successful. IQ and social skills played no part in it. The only thing that she hasn’t figured out is, how can you build grit in all kids so that everyone is successful?

     

     Bill Gates made his point clear that, “everyone needs a coach”. His main idea was that we need people to give us feedback so that we can better. China has the best education system because their teachers coach each other. They help one another and they sit in each other’s classes and then give feedback so that that teacher better him or herself. In America, our teachers are given back feedback with one word, “SATISFACTORY”, and that is why all of our teachers don’t know how to help children and be there for them. They are given a curriculum and taught to just “teach it”, whoever gets it, gets it and whoever doesn’t, tough luck.

     Geoffrey Canada from the Harlem Child Zone, said one line that stood out to me. “The real safety of our nation lies in the education of the next generation.” He said that when he was growing up (56 years ago) there was a school that was a “lousy” school. 56 years ago, it is still a lousy school. Nothing has changed and he said that the way they are teaching is with the mentality of “one size fits all”. He said America cannot wait another 50 years to get it right and in his school the graduation rate was 100% last year  and his college acceptance rate was also 100% and this year his acceptance rate for his kids into college is 93% and he working on the other 7% to make it there.

     Pearl Arredondo, a teacher from Los Angeles, comes from a negative background. Her middle school was filled with gangs and drug dealers and she witnessed her father die by overdosing on drugs. Her teacher had already considered a “lost cause” and she had given up on school as well. Her mother didn’t give up on her and sent away to a school that was an hour and a half away from home and there, she met teachers who saw her potential and helped her graduate middle school. She then went off to graduate high school and college and then went back to old middle school and decided she wanted to be a teacher. She wanted to “save more kids” and she wanted to help kids who “were just like her”. She ended up opening up her own school that has the freedom to hire teachers that will be effective in teaching children and she believes that kids deserve a school in their own neighborhood and not have to travel and hour or two to attend a “good” school. She closed her speech by saying, “It’s time for kids like me to stop being the exception and become the norm.”

     This stood out to me because children that have to deal with struggles, whether family issues or person issues or mental issues, are usually the ones that do not do well in their classes and those are the ones that shunned by society and end up being drop outs. If those kids were to become the norm then there wouldn’t be such a high dropout rate because there would be help for them and they would be able to accomplish their goals, instead of being given up on by the same people that are supposed to push them and help them strive for better.

     Educator, Sir Ken Robinson, moved to Los Angeles 12 years ago and has learned that alternative schools are becoming more common “it spite of the dominant culture, not because of it.” This is important to note because his point was that these schools that we call “alternative” shouldn’t be called alternative at all when they are the schools that helping out a majority of our kids. He also said the rule “no child left behind” tightens the curriculum teachers are given when in fact, students need a curriculum that is open and wide because they learn better. They need teachers that can help stimulate ideas and questions and spark that curiosity because when something sparks curiosity you care about it, and when you care about it, you learn and retain information. His closing statement was very powerful when he said, “Standardized tests should be help. Not dominant. We need a movement.”

During the show they showed an excerpt of a video by a girl named Melissa, from the Bronx, NY. During this excerpt I became very emotional because she faced a similar problem that I struggled with as well. Melissa went to a school with metal detectors and the school environment was just a bad one. She had teachers that didn't care and eventually she just dropped out completely. Melissa would only got for 3rd period and leave 4th period because she knew that she would be marked present for the day. At 17 years old she gave birth to her daughter and soon came to the realization that she needed to graduate because she wasn't going to go any where in life without her high school diploma. She went to back to high school and had a math teacher who helped her through it. Her math teacher made her feel special and encouraged her and always told her "I see something in you". Melissa said it was not easy, being a mother and in high school but she made it through and is the first person in her family to graduate from high school.

    Now all though I do not have a child, I faced a very similar experience during my high school years. I attended John Dewey High School, in Brooklyn and it was a bad school to begin with. The way the school was built was to help prepare you for college by giving you "free periods" through out your classes. For example, you would have a class from 9-11 but you have a "free period" from 11-1230 and then have class again. Now as a 14,15,16 year old girl, this was terrible. We also had a huge campus and when it was spring time, no one would go to class because every one would be outside hanging out on campus. Just like everyone else, by my sophmore year I was failing. By my junior year, I was a complete drop out. They added metal detectors to the school and as a teenager, "I just couldnt travel all the way to school and back without my phone." My friends and I would only go to school for 4th period because thats when they took attendance and then we would leave school and go all over the world, EVERY SINGLE DAY. Eventually all of my friends who were seniors, graduted and so my senior year I didnt even make the effort to go to school at all. I was not going to graduate with my class and I was so behind that it would have taken 2 years to graduate, which means I would have graduated high school at 19 years old (thats my age now). I didn't want to be the laughing stock of all my friends and so I transferred to an alternative school where I went to school at night and I graduated in a year and a half. My guidance counselor there, gave me the hardest time EVER and I hated her the first few months I attended this new school. Until I realized that she really cared about me and she helped so much and gave me confidence that I can actually go to college and become something of myself. She helped me build self esteem and till this day we speak and she is still on top of me, making sure I am doing what I suppose to be doing. She helped me and I think that all of the people that spoke on this show, have it right. Students need encouragement, they need to be pushed and they need to be told that are something, that they will make it in life and become something, that they are not a product of their environment, that they are important.



 

 

ugh i love animals<3

 

 

 

 

 

#6





Killing Us Softly

"The more things change, the more things stay the same."





     'Killing Us Softly' is a video about how advertisements and the media portray women like they're objects. The woman speaker , Jean Kilbourune, explained that the way the women are placed and what they're wearing and whether they are smiling or not in these advertisements, are all done strategically and nothing is a coincidence. A woman covering her eyes, her lips, her nose, her face, are all ways that the media shows how woman are being oppressed by trying to send the message that woman are “passive” and that they have less “power” than men.

     In this picture to the left the man is saying “The harder a Wife works the cuter she looks” and at the bottom saying “honey you seem to thrive on cooking, cleaning and dusting while I’m all tuckered out by closing time…”. The husband, the MAN in the advertisement is looking DOWN at his wife and the woman is looking UP at him, adoringly, smiling, letting him hold her how he wants and keeping her hands in a downward position, as if to not show any signs of disrespect. This is exactly what Kilbourne was describing about how these ads show male dominance and how woman are portrayed as objects. The husband is looking at her as a “cute” thing because she manages to cook, clean and dust and still look “pretty”.

      Before seeing this video, I wouldn’t have been able to decipher all of these things because I wouldn’t have thought twice about it. To me, it would have just been a man telling his wife she looks cute while doing all the work of a housewife and her replying that it was due to the vitamins she was taking. Ever since I saw this video I find myself looking at ads on the train and I never noticed how much woman are portrayed as weak.

      I think it is also important to point out that the media plays a huge role on how woman view themselves and their bodies. We think that “skinny” is the way to be when in fact, it’s just how media makes these women’s bodies out to be. A line that stuck out to me the most in this video was when the Kilbourne said, “…a body type that doesn’t exist, but the only one we ever see.” And it’s so true! We only see skinny models that have flawless faces and it makes no sense because they’re airbrushed and twisted into poses to make them “look skinny” and then those pictures are edited and then reedited to be “perfect”. So no one in the world can ever look like them! But yet those are standards that women have to live up to, to be considered “pretty” or “beautiful”.

                        A Call to Men - The Man Box
      A Call to Men is a video in which a man speaker, Tony Porter, talked about his views on how men are raised to think and act in our society. He grew up in New York City and he explains how he grew up and had to know that men are supposed to be tall, strong, dominant, in-charge, leaders, show no fear, show no emotion, heterosexual and to think that men are superior which means that women are inferior. He said that men are taught to think that women are objects (especially sexual objects) and that they have to live up to these standards of“THE MAN BOX”. This “man box” is what defines “manhood”. He shared stories of him growing up and his own experiences of trying to stick with the rules of the“man box”.
     What stuck out to me is the story that he told about his own children. He has a daughter and a son and they’re 15 months apart, so they’re very close in age. Whenever his daughter cries, he allows her to cry and to cuddle into him and he baby’s her. But when his son cries he allows him 30 seconds before he starts yelling at his son to “why you crying? Look at me. Tell me what’s wrong. Why you crying? Just go to your room, get yourself together and come back to talk to me, like a MAN.” He realized that he was already building his son into these societal guidelines of being a “man”.
I think that this video showed a perfect example of how parents are agents of socialization; people or groups that teach us about our culture and how things are. In this case, Tony Parker, who is the father of a 5-year old little boy, is already teaching him how society says that men should act. That boys and men shouldn’t cry and that they need to be able to speak, that crying isn’t an option, it’s a sign of weakness.




This picture is an example of how boys and girls are learned to be socialized in ur society, the fact that girls wear pink and boys wear blue. I am not sure who and why this "rule" was even made up but i remember growing up and never liking the color blue because that "was for boys". Till this day people in my family tell my niece that blue shouldn't be her favorite color because blue "is for boys". The fact that she doesn't like the color pink and that she likes "boy sneakers" and she likes playing sports rather then going to the hair salon makes her a "tomboy" and we tell her to stop being so "boyish". I have realized now that we tell her all these things because this is what our society has decided what the norm is and the norm is that girls wear pink and that boys wear blue and if a boy wears pink he's "feminine" ar "gay" and if a girl wears blue than she's a "tomboy" or she's "gay". We teach others that both genders can wear "neutral" colors like green, beige, yellow, mustard, black, orange. But pink on boys and blue on girls?! Oh no no, the HORROR!! This is why I wrote in purple for the video where a woman spoke and in blue for the video where a man spoke.


    "Parents' Socialization of Children", written by Terri Heath, was an interesting article to me because it made me realize that different types of parenting techniques actually do effect the way a child turns into an adult and how those children will eventually have children and raise their them the way they were brought up. There were three main types of parenting styles that had a profound effect on the children being raised by this specific type of parent.
      The first was the authoritative parents. They are firm in what they say and the rules they set up, but they’re nice and caring in the way that they set up the rules. They explain the reasons for why things are and their actions, and they encourage their child to talk to them and discuss what’s bothering them. They use their power as parents to get their child to do what they want them to do without looking mean. The child raised under this parenting style is usually self-reliant, confident, cheerful and happy and cooperate with adults and are friendly with other people. They’re able to communicate well with others.
     The second was the permissiveparents. These type of parents avoid supervision and set up rules that are lower than their children’s capabilities or by not setting up rules at all. They talk to their children about family matters only and ignore all of their child’s needs. Their children are usually aggressive, aimless and lack self-control and confidence and are noncompliant with adults.
     The third type of parenting style was the authoritarian parents. These types of parents demanded obedience and when it wasn’t given their child were “punished”. They placed many rules and restrictions in their households and do not allow any compromising. Whatever they said is what went. Their children are usually fearful, moody, unhappy and are less likely to be able to deal with stressful situations.
      The article also described how different childrearing styles are all over the world. In China, for example, the parents leave their children in daycares for long hours of the day and only spend a little bit of time with them at home. In U.S. culture that is looked at wrong. But the children of these parents were usually more sociable and friendly and made friends fast. These parents are more powerful socialization agents because they allow this type of socialization to be a part of their children’s socialization process.



“The Retro Wife”, written by Lisa Miller is an article about feminism and whether it is still important. She argued two different sides of women who play roles in this world. The woman who is a stay-at-home mother and only the husband is bringing in the money and the woman who works for a living and still has time to raise her children and keep a clean home. She also brings up the view of feminism and whether or not it is important anymore. She interviews a woman named Kelly Makino, who graduated from college magna cum laude and got a degree from Penn State University and then at age 33 all her years of college meant nothing because she decided that “every household needs one primary caretaker, that woman are better at that job than men and no amount of professional success could console her if she felt her two young children were not being looked after the right way”. Kelly argues that “women are more patient and ‘keep it together’ better than men can”. This is the feminist point of view. Yahoo CEO, Marissa Mayer, refused to label herself as feminist because she “believes feminism has become a negative word now” and Marissa, went to college, worked at Google, got pregnant and still became a CEO of a Fortune 500 company.
     I think that these two views is an argument that is going on every day in today’s society. There are women that think that they shouldn’t work because they have to “take care” of the children and then there are women that think that they have to work because they have to help their families. I, personally, was raised in a single-parent household, with my mother being the primary caretaker of 3 girls, so in my eyes, working is a MUST. My mother worked till the week before she gave birth to both of my sisters and me and because of her determination, I have been working since I was 15. And my mother has a bachelor’s degree from Brooklyn College! In my family, we also believe in day cares! These stay-at-home mothers believe in not putting their children in day cares but then their lack children lack social skills. I think that day care is important because children learn how to socialize and talk to one another at a young age. It may also be that my mother could not afford to not work after the 3 month maternity leave period that her job gave her, but my sisters and I were all put into day cares at three months old. My oldest sister, who is 37 now, and is also graduating with her bachelor’s degree this May, has 3 children and best believe my niece and both my nephews were in daycares at 3 month old because she is also a single mother and can’t afford to be out of work for longer than that.
     I personally can never be a stay-at-home mother. I just cannot mentally and emotionally ever depend on a man, as the person who brings in the income, to raise my family. If I am unhappy with him, I would never be able to just take my children and leave, because I depend on him financially. That is why I am going to school and getting my education and going for my career so that by 27 I can have it already established. Have a child somewhere around 30-33 and then keep my career pushing!

Power (#5)

 

 

 The Milgram Experiment really BLEW my mind. The experiment was conducted to see whether or not people will follow directions given by an authority figure, even when the outcome can be bad (which is similar to the definition given by the textbook of Power:the ability to bring about an intended outcome, even when opposed by others). There was a professor/scientist who was in charge of the experiment and there would be some one administering some sort of test and there would be some one in another room sitting down hooked up to an electric chair and every time they got a question wrong, they would be shocked by a higher voltage of electricity. 9 out of the 12 people who were in the study, continued to the end and shocked some one with 450volts of electricity, knowing that that can kill some one, using the excuse that "the professor told me to do it", as justification. When later explained that there was no one really in the chair, and then was asked who's fault would it have been if there was fact some one sitting in the chair and that person died. One of the men in the experiment said that legally it would be the professor, but morally it would be his because he continued and he listened to the professor when the professor said to continue even though he knew it was wrong. One of the 3 people that actually stopped the experiment said he stopped because he was uncomfortable and it was wrong. All though, technically, he disobeyed the directions and the authority of the professor.

This is striking to me because thinking with a sociological perspective, I can see how this train of thought happens every where. In school, at work, at home, all of these places where are people who are "above" us because of their titles. If a teacher tells you to stand up, a student will stand up. If a police officer tells some one to stand with their hands on their head, a person will do it, because some one how they are more "powerful". But if a student tells another student to stand up, those two students will fight because in their eyes, they're "equal". But aren't we all equal?


I think that this video goes hand in hand with chapter 5 (Power)and I think that it is an example of how people with power have "power over" other people. In reality, we are all the same. But because the professor was a scientist, in the experiment room he had more "power" over the volunteer who was suppose to be exerting volts. It is also an example of how power can create conflict. There was conflict internally, in the minds of those 12 people, but only 3 of them had enough "power" to go against the authroity figure.


Five Faces of Oppression
In this article, written by Iris Young, she explains what oppression is and goes into a little deeper by stating that there are 5 types.