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.

Culture photovoice Project #4

My Culture

 

My nationality is American, but my ethnicity and where my family is from is the Dominican Republic. All of my aunt's and uncle's, and my mom, were born and raised in the Dominican Republic. One of our most important values is the relationship between family. We get together for every little thing, including birthdays, dog's birthdays, every single holiday, celebrating deaths or even sometimes- just because. It is important to us and it is a deeply held standard because there are a lot of family's who do not have that closeness, that unity. I have a lot of friend's that when they tell me they aren't doing anything for their birthday or they aren't getting together with their family for Christmas, I look at them like they're crazy! Not getting together for these two occasion's, to me, is  completely out of the norm. It's something that is considered to me to be "appropiate" behavior for those types of occasions and if you are not doing it then you aren't behaving as normal family. And that idea and belief that I have is an example of enthocentrism. I look at my friend's that don't get together with their family's like they're crazy because to me that is what is right and what you are suppose to do.

 

 

Graduation is a value that both my American culture and my Dominican culture deeply believe is important. In this picture I was graduating from High School and my cap and gown is a symbol of it's own. It symbolizes success, I was ready for the next step and I will continue to succeed and propser. It symbolizes knowledge, without it I wouldn't have learned how to speak , read and write and understand both languages of both my cultures and I wouldn't have learned the basic norms of being within them. It symbolizes growth. It symbolizes me entering the real world. In this case, my cap and gown can be an example of both, material culture and nonmaterial culture.It can be material culture because the cap and gown are clothing that symbolizes something and it can be nonmaterial culture because of the ideas, beliefs and knowledge that are assiociated with graduation.

 

 

 

This is a picture of a church called St. Augustine, in Brooklyn, New York. My religion is Catholic and can correspond to both my American culture and my Dominican culture. Going to sunday mass at 10:30am on every Sunday is an example of a folkway, this is something that is common in my both cultures and has been molded into a habit; something that is just a part of every Sunday. You wake up early, get dressed for church, go to church, enjoy your Sunday mass and then go out to brunch after. This is yet again, another norm.

 

This picture is of me getting my first tattoo. I got my mother and my two sister's favorite flowers; a tuberose, a purple rose and a sunflower; tied together by a ruffled bow. In my American culture, tattoo's are acceptable and it some how became a norm because of how many people have one. However, in my Dominican culture it was a HUGE problem. This day started my own personal culture war. My family intensely diagreed with my act to get a tattoo and in fact, my mother stopped talking to me for about a month! She saw it like I did not value my body and I did not care about it. She saw the ink and automatically thought I was upset about something and that is what made me "act" out and try to ruin it. It went against all the morals she and my family ever taught me about self-respect and how young girls are suppose to be considered "pure" and "innocent". Getting inked went against all that. My body was no longer pure or innocent and it went against my morals because I did not respect myself enough to NOT get it. But to me, this tattoo WAS INDEED a way to express my love for my mother and my sisters. They will forever officially be a part of me, they're inbedded in me, literally. To me, this goes along with the morals my family taught me, that family needs to be unified and close at all times and that you should love your family forever. My tattoo was embraced by my American culture. All of my friends all loved it. Some of them were even there watching while I got it done. However, I can now understand that my two cultures clashed because I got the tattoo with my American culture values and norms in mind.



I use to be a manager at a McDonald's in Brooklyn, and one time while I was closing I was taking the order a man and i got all of his food and i told him his total, which was around $8. He handed me a $20 dollar bill and he put the money in my hand. The way he handed it to me was weird as well. Usually people place money into your hand, but this guy held one end of the 20 while I grabbed the other. I did not think anything of it and I proceeded to count out his change. As I closed the register and was getting ready to pass his change to him, he said, "Can you do me a favor?". I said, "Umm sure?". He said, "Can you put the change down on the counter?" I must have looked very confused because after that he said, "It's just my culture. I cannot touch any body part of a woman that is not my wife." I said, "Sure no problem", put his change down on the counter, gave him his food and wished him a good day. I had jus experienced a culture shock. I stood thinking about that man for a long while and until that point I had no clue that handling money and change can be considered part of your culture! I thought every one had to hand you money and change into your hands because that was what I considered to be respectable in my American culture. Now, I no longer work at McDonald's but I am a cashier at a Sephora, and a lot of people from overseas put their money on the counter top, and I hand them back their change on the counter top because I do not want to disrespect their culture. That man taught me a valuable lesson.  




The Toyota Prius Hybrid (or whatever it is called, I'm far from a car expert) is an example of cultural lag. People in American culture want to create a car that runs off solar energy and not gas so that we conserve the earth's natural gases. Now all though I agree with this idea, we aren't thinking about the bad effects that a hybrid itself can have on the earth. We invent things and then we aren't ready for their consequences because we don't anticipate them, we don't expect them. Driving a hybrid car that uses the sun for energy still won't stop texting and driving, or drinking and driving.

Prince Royce is a "latin pop" music singer who has a song called "Stand by me" and this song is sung in both English and Spanish. This is the perfect song that mixes both the languages of my two cultures and turns them into one. This is also an example of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. This can be considered a part of this hypothesis because there are lines of the song that when translated into english, mean something that doesn't mean the same in spanish and vise versa. For example, in the song he says "Stand by me". To say that in spanish you would say, "parate al lado de mi" or "apuyame". In this song though, he says "junto a mi", but when you translate "junto a mi" into english it means "together with me" or "along with or near me". So saying along or near me will change the behavior in which some one will actually either stand along you, or near you. And the same goes for spanish. The two ways of saying "stand by me" in spanish have two totally different meanings which will change the way one acts towards you and what you are asking them to do specifically.   

 

Body Rituals Among the Nacirema

     I have read this passage before in my Anthropology class 100, and it was very amusing to learn that this is actually describing us; Americans.

     "The more powerful individuals in the society have several shrines in their houses..." is saying that the more wealthier people have a lot of bathrooms in their homes (which is true).
     "The focal point of the shrine is a box or chest which is built into the wall. In this chest are kept the many charms and magical potions without which no native believes he could live." This is addressing the medicine cabinet in the bathroom.
     "Medicine men", are doctors and the "medicine men" don't see you without being rewarded with a "substancial gift", or money/insurance.
     "Herbalists", are the pharmacists and to receive your presciption you need to pay them too.
     "Holy-mouthed men", are dentists. "Listener" is a therapist. "Women bake their heads in small ovens for about an hour", are women who go to the hair salon and sit under hair dryers to dry their hair. "The are rituals to make fat people thin and ceremonial feasts to make thin people fat", this is dieting.


I really like this piece because when put it into this perspective and these words, you actually think about how silly our culture, as Americans, is. When I first read it I ha to reread it a couple of times because I felt like I could relate too much to the the Nacirema people. Until I read again and I realized that it was us! It was me! I had sat and baked my head for about an hour before and I can't go to the "medican man" unless I have insurance or money to be seen and diagnosed. I think that the purpose of this passage to put into perspective how silly the things that we believe is so important really are. We believe in too much when in reality, things are really simple.

Teenage Wasteland, by Donna Gaines

My immediate feeling after reading this article was appreciation. I appreciated it because Donna Gaines decided to look further into why these four teenagers decided to end their lives. Her findings were that the four teens, and kids around the world that are considered outcasts and "burnouts", commit suicide because they have "bad lives" and at the time they felt that suicide was the only way "out" of their misery. Now I can't speak on how this must feel because I've never felt this way but I do think that people who commit suicide, whether a teenager or not, feel like they have no other choice and no one else can help them. I think a way to help stop this is to enforce that YOU ARE NOT ALONE. When people feel alone, like outcasts and they start feeling like they have nothing else to live for, that’s when they think suicide is the answer.

 The words "burnouts", "societal neglects", "f***-ups", "dropouts", "druggies" and "goth" all stood out to me because this is exactly what kids are called if they don't fit into what "society" thinks they should fit in to. For example, to society a "jock" is someone who is really good in all sports, is popular, is really cute or handsome, comes from a wealthy family and has the prettiest girlfriend and a "cheerleader" is someone who is really pretty, usually a blonde or a brunette, is super skinny, wears a lot of makeup, also comes from a wealthy family and is the most popular girl in school.

 Now the reason I can list these characteristics is because when I was in high school, these characteristics and “spot’s” were still around. I remember being popular in school and being popular was more important than doing really good in my classes. I worried about what I was going to eat for lunch and who I was going to sit with, rather than how long I was going to study for my next English test. And just like all the other kids of Bergenfield, New Jersey, I ignored the "outcasts" and the "druggies". I would see them and it was automatically a negative thought behind it. Not once did I stop to wonder about how they felt or about what they were going through. Which I know is how most kids in America, or around the world for that matter, do.

 We grow up to try to "fit in" to these categories and we have no idea who made them or why we even try to fit into them. I think one of the reasons that we try to fit into these categories is to be accepted by society, by our peers, by our teachers, by our parents, so that we aren't left as outcasts, so that we are comforted by idea that we BELONG somewhere. That we aren't alone because there are people "just like us", when indeed, there is no one who is just like you. And there is no such thing as “being you” because in some way, shape or form, everything you do is based on something or someone. Is there indeed such thing as individuality? We all follow each other. A new trend comes out and all of sudden everyone looks exactly the same. A famous singer gets a new haircut and all of sudden everyone has that same hair style.

  Which leads me to think that the “burnouts” who are ending their lives because they “don’t fit in”, are indeed the only ones with just a little bit of individuality because they are going against the “rules”. They’re fighting back against what is the “norm”. They don’t dress the same as everyone else or listen to the same music or have the same hair colors and hair styles. They indeed are the DIFFERENT ones, The INDIVIDUALS. And yet the price they pay for believing that categories shouldn’t be a way to classify themselves is their life.

drugs is NOT an excuse! __ #2

"Assiociation is not Causation", written by Richard J. Gelles & Mary M. Cavanaugh is about whether or not drugs and alcohol can used as an “excuse” for violence and aggression. One thing that boggled my mind is the evidence that they have to prove that the way people behave when they are “drunk” or are drinking is how their society tells them or shows them how they should be acting (page 2, paragraphs 1 and 2). I find this so interesting because that means that when people I know are drinking, they probably really aren’t even really “drunk” or intoxicated, they are just pretending. They are doing it for show because that’s how you are “supposed to act” when you are “drunk”.

 That fact that all these studies prove that all past studies are wrong and that in fact violence and drug abuse do not go hand in hand, is also something new to me and I think that this should be shared more. I think that these two writers did a lot of basic research; they researched the aspect of society of how people are in groups and around others when they are drinking and they expanded their knowledge and understanding of this topic. They applied their research by directly addressing their issue and publishing this article and then they publicly released it so that others can read it and expand their knowledge and understanding as well.

 I also found the statistic that fewer 20% of men were legally intoxicated in 1974 when they were arrested for domestic violence (page 3, paragraph 2), very interesting because most of the time you hear “I was drunk and didn’t know what I was doing” as an excuse for beating on their wife when in fact that excuse is wrong! I mean there is no excuse for beating on someone period, but now no one can really blame it on alcohol because it’s proven to be wrong! And the fact that some drugs, like marijuana, are proven to actually reduce violent behavior is new to me too.

 I think the fact that this article really opened up my eyes and taught me a lot of new things, proves the fact that society chooses what is acceptable and what isn’t. Just recently a friend told me that her boyfriend hit her and the first question out of my mouth was, “Was he drunk?” She replied, “Yes,” and I just shook my head. Now I know that that is not an excuse!

SOMETHING that passed my mind today...

I am a cashier at Sephora, a make-up store, and there are usually 1-4 cashiers at a time and we stand in front of our registers and wait for clients to come up so that we can assist them. Today was a slow day and so instead of just standing there we started to make samples. Now the process to make samples is really simple, you open up the miniature jar, put the product inside of the jar, close the jar, open up a plastic baggy and on the outside of the plastic baggy,  write the name of the product and how/when to use it.

 So, like I was saying, we were making samples of a facial cleanser and at one point I looked up and I realized that we were ‘dividing the labor’. The girl on register four was opening the jars, the girl on register three was filling the jars, I was on register two and I was writing the name of the cleanser on the baggy and the girl on register one was putting the jar filled with cleanser into the baggy and sealing it.  

 If Durkheim were alive to see us he would say that he was 100% correct in his idea that each person has a function and that if you have people specializing in one thing then the work will get done much quicker! And did it get done much quicker?! We did about 90 samples in 15 minutes! I stopped at one point and I laughed out loud and I told them that I learned about Durkheim and division of labor in my sociology class and that Durkheim was a genius and that till this day his ideas are being used and are 100% effective!

 

 

 

His name is Dude.

my heart<3

WHO AM I __ #1

I am simply, a college student chasing her dream. Now I don't say dream[s] because I only have one dream. I want to become a veterinarian and help get all thehelpless animals that are abused and treated bad out of those abusive homes and into new ones. I want to get the poor homeless animals off the streets and into new loving homes. I feel like this is why I was put on this earth, to help the animals that weren't born with voices and give them a chance to speak, a chance at being loved. I feel like I have a gift of being able to understand animals and them being able to understand me (as crazy as that sounds).

My biggest influence is my very own dog and the faces of all the animals who are in shelters, taken from their abusive owners. My dog was adopted by me and my mother in August of 2007 and would cower at the sight of my hand as I would bend down to pet him. He is a small Jack Russell Terrier and the thought of any one hitting an animal that only weighs 15 pounds is horrific. He was beat enough times in his life before me that he feared the same hand that fed him, the same hand that was suppose to show him love and affection.

Animal cruelty is something that needs to be stopped all over the world. It takes place in simple things such as wearing a wool coat or having a leather wallet. People don't think about the animals that were brutally tortured as we enjoy those beautiful leather boots or that beautiful hat that has a stuffed bird on it. Now I am no angel. For I love eating pizza (that has cheese, which comes from dairy, that comes from cows who were tortured) and having a good wallet. I just don't see how and why people can find an animal screaming in pain and writhing in hurt, so amusing.

Looking at the big picture, there still is no justification in stabbing a cow or kicking a dog or burning a cat or whipping an elephant. I think what needs to happen is that people need to be educated on rights and wrongs of animal treatment. From a young age you see toddlers kicking at pigeons and pulling a dog's hair... going to the circus and being afraid of tigers and lions... thinking that when a dog growls at you when you are near their food is a "bad dog" and he should be "punished" -- when he is only doing what's natural for him (protecting his food).

I think that if I am successful, my personal biography will a good one. I think my personal experience as of yet is limited, but i've done my share of saving animals and finding them homes and getting homeless animals off the street -- and those few nights, I slept real good..