Soc. 3251W Race, Class, and Gender

Between the two readings there were two very different attitudes on the topic of affirmative action. In the Ore reading, Reskin seemed to be more optimistic than the article in the Annual Reviews.
In the Ore reading, Reskin addresses the most troubling aspect of AA, "reverse discrimination", she points out the evidence that shows that whites' fears of reverse discrimination are exaggerated. "Only 5-12% of whites believe that their race has cost them a job or promotion, compared to 36% of African Americans". Affirmative action has benefited employers by increasing productivity, improved hiring proceudres, improved marketing, and increase stock prices. Importantly, affirmative action has increased the pools of skilled minorites and female workers which brings services to communities that are usually underserved such as physicians and role models.
Affirmative action encourages practices such as, targeted recruitment, open advertising, monitoring diversity, job training and educational assitance designed to allow minorities to compete as individuals (396).
In the online article, Reskin takes on a negative view on affirmative action. Reskin states that AA has created protected groups. The primary objective of AA was to protect African Americans but instead they only protect groups that have the minimal impact on academic standards. Colleges and universities started to require SAT or ACT tests for admission, whites and Asian applicants tend to outscore blacks and Hispanics, therefore these standardized test reduced blacks' and Hispanics' chances of admissions (362). Some believe that AA puts minority students in competition with better prepared whites, raising minorities dropout rates (363).
I believe that affirmative action is a good way to alleviate racial and gender inequality in higher education and in the work place if used effectively. I do not believe in the "quotas" that some companies use to maintain their diversity level because it is discrimination. I think that when an applicant gets added points for being a minority is not discrimination because it addresses the issues of white privilige. The extra points will help balance all of the other points that a white applicant would have such as extra curricular activities that a minority would not have resources to. I believe that I am in college today because of affirmative action, it's nice to feel advantaged for being a minority rather than being a disadvantaged.
1. Does the benefits out the cons? Do you believe that affirmative action is alleviating racial and gender inequality or is it just promoting it?
2. Are there any other solutions that higher education and employers should use to alleviate inequality?

Posted by Amanda at 1:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The readings assigned for March 29th focus on the effects of social and economic problems in the inner city, and how these problems are perpetuating racial disadvantages for minority communities.
Wilson’s article in Orr’s book describes the role of job loss in inner-city communities and its effect on perpetuating social, economic, and crime problems in the inner-city. As the number of unskilled jobs has decreased throughout the 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s, it has disproportionately affected the inner-cities. The article holds that problems such as “family dissolution,� and a lack of a sense of community are tied first and foremost to the loss of jobs. Kirschenman and Neckerman’s article in Orr’s book looks at how employers view inner-city workers unfavorably.

The Massey and Denton article in Grusky’s book focuses on the place of racial segregation in maintaining racial disadvantage. While agreeing with Wilson’s article that the changing work environment over the last couple of decades has created problems, they believe that the overriding problem is segregation itself. If inner city communities were not racially segregated, the restructured job environment would not have had such a large effect, but would rather have been dispersed more evenly throughout society. The Massey and Denton article also looks at the role of inner city culture, racism, and welfare in perpetuating inner city problems. It seems this article takes a much more open view of the problems associated with poor, inner city communities. It’s conclusion that racial segregation is the primary cause of inner city poverty is difficult to substantiate in my opinion, as evidenced by the diversity of opinions on this issue.
The Hirschman and Snipp article in Grusky’s book uses a clever quantitative approach to tracking changes in economic status and occupational attainment in whites and several minority populations over the course of two decades. It found that the most important cause of racial disadvantage (and advantage) was the level of education. It found that the residency of individuals is not as important as the schooling level. This is in contrast to the Massey and Denton article. However, a quick check on the coding for residency shows that they did not differentiate between the inner city and the suburbs, but rather grouped them together into a metropolitan residency. Thus the effect of living in the ghetto is almost certainly diminished in this study.

Question #1
Do you think racial segregation, job loss, education level, or some other reason is the primary cause of social and economic problems in inner city ghettos? Or are all the causes coupled too complexly to pinpoint a single most important cause?

Question #2
Do you think a push to desegregate inner city communities is a good idea? A bad idea?

Posted by E. Stewart at 10:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The articles for today touched on several aspects of the labor market, including how employers create competition, effects of education and training levels, as well as comparing the work of today to work of the past. Beth A. Rubin dubs these times the Accord era and the post-Accord era, or the Stable vs. the Flexible workplace. Rubin highlights the Stable workplace, which I’d say we all, at least to some degree, view as the “good ol’ days�. During this time, employers created stability, and employees stayed with companies for year and years and worked their way up, planning their retirement all the way through. This was a time that even those without higher education could start at an entry level position, and end up head of the company down the road. This was beneficial for both sides of the coin, and there was loyalty within companies for the most part.

As for the Flexible workplace, she argues partly that much of the changes have resulted from technologies, as well as just the change in structure of competition. This arguably came about when companies started focusing on productivity, and the getting the “best bang for your buck� attitude. This is often looked upon negatively, but I argue (to an extent) that it was also the logical and necessary route for companies in a growing country to succeed. This change resulted in many types of competition, but our readings identify 2- wage and vacancy, which Rubin considers slightly (more in terms of closed and open hiring) as well as Sorensen and Kalleburg in our Grusky readings.

In Grusky we looked at these competition differences. Wage competition (Neo-classical Theory) is generally related to skill level of employees, and that (in theory) directly transfers to salary and compensation. This would relate to more often to a company with open hiring. Vacancy competition more relates to the “moving up� ideal. Generally these jobs still require a certain amount training/education, but the concept is that when skills increase and when vacancies are available, one is then able to move up the ladder.

We also looked at the effects of strong vs. weak ties in Mark S. Granovetter’s article. This relates to how job openings travel by word of mouth. We all know the saying “It’s who you know, not what you know�, and this is it. So many positions are filled not necessarily from within, but with this notion of weak ties, and how many of them one has. Eric mentioned in class that a very high percentage of jobs are not posted or listed anywhere, rather simply by these ties.

In terms of the inequality that exists in the U.S., I think it’s very important to note that all of these aspects accumulate to create the gap that we have now. The lack of education or training for minorities or those in poverty, a lack of these weak ties between working class looking to move up, and those in the upper class, as well as the changes in the structure of the workplace as a whole.

Discussion Questions-
1. In what ways do the arguments and theories in Rubin’s article differ from those in the Sorensen/Kallerberg article?

2. Do you feel these changes in the workplace have the outcomes that these authors suggest?

3. What are other options for people in positions lacking these necessary weak ties? What are other possible effects?

Posted by Chelsea B at 10:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

When looking at theories of matching persons to job, I would agree with economist and sociologist that the most important variable is a person’s education. But I would also argue that an important factor that needs to be looked at when looking at job matching and earning outcome is intelligence married with common sense.

Employment relationship is important in the idea of both employee and employer working to maximize earnings. Part of the employment relationship involves control over access to jobs, which can create competition among employees; influencing employees to work hard to keep their job or attain to higher-level positions, and intern, keep wages up for themselves and employers. Competition among employees seems normal and necessary to me and may very well keep productivity high, however, I worry that if the level of competition is too high, quality of life in the work place may not be great. A huge concern of mine is that people be passionate about what they do- love each day of work, think of it as a gift. I fear that the pressure to make money has taken passion out of the work place. Passion in the sense of doing what you enjoy, instead of being passionate about profits- which seems to be popular in our society.

Friendly co-workers create a positive working environment. It’s my opinion and experience that a working environment that has employees who are passionate about what they do, enjoy working with their co-workers, and receive respect and recognition from their employers, are the most positive and productive working environments.

Networking/ our ties to others/ establishing interpersonal relationships are crucial for success in the workplace. How are these at work in our lives as college students?

What have been your experiences when you create ties with teachers and TAs vs. not? Do you have any personal stories of how establishing ties with teachers/ TA has helped your grade?

How does one’s success and happiness at the work place affect how they interact with their families? How likely is it that an unhappy employee will take their anger and aggression out on the people in their “home life�? Does a negative working environment with a high level of employee competition cause a bad home life?

How does having “street smarts� or common sense play into your ability to get a job?

Posted by Grant Heuke at 10:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

On March 22, 2007 in the Fashion and Style section of the New York Times one headline read “I Have Taken on My Daughter’s Hair and Won�, which chronicled a father’s discovery of hairstyling. The author was inspired when he watched a cousin’s husband skillfully weave his daughter’s hair into neat little braids. From thus on the author took on the challenge of learning how to style hair while also discovering the difficulties that women face in relation to their hair.

The article was an interesting and ultimately humorous intersection of gender roles and race. Whenever the author braided his daughter’s hair in public women would approvingly smile and comment about how wonderful it was to see a man so involved with his daughter. After a trip to the YMCA the author approached his wife with boasts of compliments that he had received for his braiding skills. “She listens to my occasional boasts, amused and a little annoyed. Add it to the list of things women do with little fuss that practically earn men a medal.� Women are expected to take on nurturing roles within the family and when men take on nurturing roles others comment at the break from gender roles.

Besides chronicling his frustration with combs and pins the author describes his discovery of the complications black women face when they’re deciding what hairstyle to pick. “Does having a relaxer to straighten natural kinks bow to white society’s notion of good hair? Do free-form ’fros and braids with fake hair extensions look “professional� enough?� While race, class, and gender studies often deal with serious subjects such as domestic violence, discrimination, and class inequalities even something as seemingly simple as hair has implications to one’s status in society.

Posted by Sandy Jackiewicz at 2:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The Sadker and Sadker article for today highlighted the gender divide in today's schools. They show that the separation of gender roles is not solely established by the teacher's neglect of females. However, the fact that teachers pay more attention to boys, even if it is negative, adds to the neutral role of girls. It appears as if girls are so good that they do not matter. From this, boy can justify their separation from the "supspecies" of girls.

Jonathon Kozol focuses on the economic divide within America's schools. He stated taht there is no real equity; it is just close enough that no one can make a significant complaint. While the poor know that they are missing out and that nothing can be done to change it, the rich justify the disparity with their own "unfair disadvantatges." He ended with a profound finding that this is not a problem that can be fixed once it occurs. People only have one childhood, and they cannot be given what they lost out on as an adult. This is just that the skills the rich were given as children cannot be taken away.

Jay Macleod concluded that no matter what, we are all trapped in the game, whether we want to play or not. The whites in his study had no desire to work and a very bleak vier on the future. The blacks, on the other hand, saw the importance in education and wanted something better for themselves. Sadly, in the end, neigher group achieved much better than where they where when they started.

While reading for today, I was reminded of the bleak reality for the disadvantaged that I grew up in. While I see the validity within the Sadker and Sadker article (as I had seen it before myself), I think that it neglects many positive, pro-female actions that schools across America are taking now. The article makes it sound as if no progress has been made in gender roles for the past 30 years. Kozol's article, to me, holds a lot of ground and I agree with everything that he highlights. The rich work so hard to keep their position in socitey that they blind themselves to the injustice that they are doing. Macleods article was simply depressing. There is virtually no opportunity for either of the races in the lower class to advance. So which is better, to have a false hope, or no hope at all?

Discussion Questions
1. If teachers were to rigidly enforce the equality of genders to students, would that even affect the separation that the students put in place themselves? Would gender roles really disappear if females were more encouraged?

2. With the realisitic view that educational funds will not be equally distributed for a long time, is it better to continue with the false pretense that all children in America have the same opportunities? In other words, should we just let the disadvanted know of what they have lost by simply being born poor and from this they would not have false hope that they can escape their current life?

Posted by Jennifer at 9:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

The first article for today was by Jonathan Kozol. Kozol's article discussed the inequalities in schools in nieghborhoods that were poor as opposed to richer areas. The second article, by Myra Sadker and David Sadker, told how primary school reinforces gender roles, and ignores girls more often than boys. Jay Macleod's article looked at two groups of boys from the same socioeconomic background and compared how their outlooks on life differed.
Kozol's article made it clear that inequalities in the school system favor the economically well off. It also mentioned how there is a 75% equality between the poorest districts and the average districts. This got me thinking, and it seems to me that the poorest districts should actually be granted 25% more than average not less. The part of the article about Anacostia talked about kids shoving chicken nuggets in their pockets on Friday so they would not go hungry over the weekend. In the wealthy district of Great Neck, a family complains that their daughter has a hard time at an expensive prestigeous college. This family that has enough to afford for their daughter to go to an expensive college, while the other families cannot afford enough food. It does not make since that the families with more money should be given a school with more money; the state should help out those who really need it.

Earlier discussions in this class focused on education being a system for reinforcing gender roles. Sadker and Sadker gave a whole new dimension to this. It is so often in the teacher's subconscious to enforce these roles. It seems like a lot of teenage girls' self-esteem issues could come from being subtly put down so often in the classroom. It almost makes sense that if enforcing these roles is so natural for teachers that they do it with out even trying, maybe that is part of why there is so much inequality in the work place. Employers could have some of these same ideals in the backs of their minds which would sway them to hire a male over a female with out looking at qualifications.
Jay Macleod kind of stamped out the idea of hard work being a means to raise oneself up socioeconomically. I was surprised to see that it was the mostly non-white group that had the more positive outlook on life. They were at a greater disadvantage, yet still were hopeful. I think if more studys like this were done people might realize that the poor are disadvantaged and actually do need some help from the government to get out of poverty. The job market is against them, and as Kozol's article pointed out, they are not getting as good of an education. They are being taught that there is no way out.

Discussion Questions
1) How do you feel about giving more money to districts in poorer areas, and having richer areas make up the difference through things like increased fees and lunch prices, since they can better afford it?
2) While it is true that things like having a girl's line/team/table and a boy's line/team/table is segregation, how much of a role does it play in generating inequalities? Do most of the inequalities come from the teachers' reactions to students, or does it actually come from the seperations?

Posted by Sally at 10:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The three articles from the Ore book discuss the ways in which the idea of a family is socially constructed through the interconnection of race, class, gender, and sexuality. Whether it was in the early American colonies, the Industrial Revolution, or even contemporary modern society, the idea of family has been shaped and reshaped through defined social categories which dichotmize the (assumed) ‘fit‘ (white, male, etc.) from the ‘unfit‘ (non-whites, females, homosexuals) groups in American society. In “Our Mothers’ Grief…� Dill writes, “…While white women had fewer legal rights as women, they were protected through public forms of patriarchy that acknowledged and supported their family roles of wives, mothers, and daughters because they were vital instruments for building American society� (Dill 1998, p. 224), whereas ethnic women (blacks, Chicanos, and Asians) did not enjoy such privilege. There is a contradiction here: on the one hand, white women become the representative of the nation, since they reproduce and raise the nation’s future; on the other hand, that same nation, where the women are the “vital contributors to the stabilization and growth of [the American] society� (p. 225), is masculinized and the ‘building blocks’(women) are oppressed. In addition, non-white women and men do no play a role in this representation; they only contribute to growth of the nation, but are not true representatives of America. This is yet another contradiction where the labor of the non-white populations is very important to the new nation, but, because they are the ‘Other’ they do not fit into the ‘normal’ categories laid out for the white population. Class distinction is also important when looking at how the “American Family� was constructed.

This article, more than the other two, interested me personally because my course paper looks at the interconnection of women and nationhood. Not just in America, but in many societies, the world over, symbolize their nations through women ( ‘motherland’, ‘mother tongue’, etc.). The women’s reproduction system becomes synonymous with the growth of a nation, the future of the nation, and so on. Yet these same women are subjugated in the nations they build.

Another important aspect of this article is the exclusion of the non-white as the representatives of the nation. While slave labor, as well as other ethnic groups’ labor were essential in building this nation, they were not the ideal Americans (in fact, they weren‘t considered Americans at all). The liberation of these ethnic groups has taken a very long time. Yet when the so-called liberation for each ethnic group has taken place, they still were/are not considered true representatives of America. Today we have African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Chicano-American, etc. Hyphenated identity tells us that no matter how long the group has been here and how much they have helped build this country, they will never be considered the ’true’ representatives of this nation. Furthermore, the situation for white women might have changed, however, even they are second to the ultimate representatives of this nation: white males.

Questons:

In what ways are the categories of race, class, gender, and sexuality used to construct differences between different groups, as illustrated in the three articles?

How is the family unit used as representative of the nation, and therefore indicative of the those who are considered ‘true’ Americans?

In what ways do these differences maintain the dominance of the white race, particularly the white male, over other race as well as women of all colors?

Posted by Qadro Abdi at 8:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Reading Lillian Rubin’s “Families on the Fault Line…� made me think of a word often used in the books of medical anthropologist Paul Farmer: structural violence. Structural violence is the social, political, and economical processes which make individuals or groups of people, in high risk of, or vulnerable to diseases, poverty, and exploitation, among others things.

In Rubin’s interviews, it is very clear that the central problem is economic; however, that economic problem transforms into more complex web of social (both family and society), political (how much the state values working class families), and economical (job availability and generated family income) processes which shape the families interviewed in this study. Due to their socioeconomic status, these families are struggling to make ends meet. Majority of them are two-parent workers, often in alternating shifts. Income generated by parents is not enough to pay the necessities, let alone pay for childcare. Hence, childcare becomes a problem for the two working parents. The economically challenged parents then worry about the safety and behavior of their children, especially those old enough to be influenced by defiant peers. A white mother of two teens states, “My son got into bad company and had some trouble, so mike [the husband] and I decided one of us had to be home. But we can’t make it without my check so I cant quit,� however, “this is when [teen years] they need someone to be here all the time to make sure they stay out of trouble�(p.250). Hence, her husband works in the daytime and stays with the children after school, while she works in the night time. Similar to all the families interviewed in this article, this couple rarely have time for small chat or a downtime together alone. Romance does not figure in this equation of adding and subtracting money, something the couples complain about in different ways with respect to their gender. The frustrations and the emotions conveyed in these interviews are enough to help us understand the struggles that working class families, especially two-parent-working families, have to endure.

Structural violence, therefore, can be used as means of understanding the social processes at work for putting these families in high risk of social, biological, and psychological problems, in addition to their economical challenges. From a public health perspective, since majority of the 46 million uninsured people living in America are from the working class, these families are susceptible to diseases, and might not get medical attention for treatable medical problems due to their economical problems (Hollywood version of this reality: Danzel-starter “John Q“). In addition, the economic challenges pushes them deeper into urban poverty. In terms of housing, they are more likely to live in a cheap apartments where landlords do not take care of the apartments needs, such as heating, plumping, water, and broken window/door. Furthermore, since both parents work, and are more likely to live in a poor neighborhood, their children have higher chances of joining gangs, doing drugs, and going to jail compared to children who reside in higher levels of the socioeconomic ladder.

“Inner-city poor neighborhoods often shelter a vigorous drug trade, numerous opportunities for strangers to engage in drug-mediated, unprotected sex, and numerous locations where these and other risk behaviors go virtually unchallenged� (Fulllilove quoted in Farmer, 1998).

In microbiology terminology, opportunistic pathogen is an otherwise nonpathogenic (does not cause disease) organism which becomes pathogenic under certain conditions, such as when the immune system becomes weak, or when normal flora (normal bacteria living on/in humans/animals) which would create competition, is deteriorated. In a similar fashion, poverty, disease, and exploitation, among others negative factors, are opportunistic, striking only when activated by the complex web of social, political, and economical processes. This ‘opportunistic pathogen’ is obviously more likely to attack the poor than the rich. Therefore making the poor, poorer, and more susceptible to social and biological problems. One might think of these descriptions as exaggerations of the realities of working families. However, these are realistic risks faced by families as a result of their poorness. Hence, this articles clearly illustrates the interconnection of complex social processes, economic being a big one, which determine the livelihoods of the working class families.

Questions:

In what way does the economy make working-class families vulnerable? Is the free market, or capitalist system to blame?

What are other factors (race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) determine the accepted (by the dominant ‘culture’) definition of Family? Compared to categories such as race and gender, how does iconological status different in creating structural violence?

How can the U.S. government help working class families? Does the government even care?

Reading this articles, and the interviews of these families, do you think the inequalities they experience, whether it is due to racial or economic status, is beneficial to the prosperity of this country? In other words, how does their lack of economic and social privileges help others exploit them?

Posted by Sadia at 8:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

As I was reading the assigned readings for our family, background and education unit, a specific reading in The Social Construction of Difference and Inequality written by Ore, caught my attention. The reading was called, Families on the Fault Line. As you read this article, you begin to realize the differences that set aside the working class from all others. It is not just the occupations they have, or how much yearly income they make, that sets them so far apart, but also the inside workings of their families. The day to day obligations such as prepairing meals, childcare, shopping, sleeping, working, spending quality time with one another, and household chores, all cause tension. All of these things, along with many more become conflicts for a working class family. Unfortunately, because of their economic status, a working class family does not have the time or the resources to satisfy the needs of themselves, as parents, or the needs of their own children.

Time and money-precious commodities in short supply. These are the twin plagues of family life, stated Rubin on page 254. This is especially true for the working class. Not only are working class families considered poor, but they probably work twice as hard as an upperclass family needs to to survive. Most parents end up working two jobs just to make ends meet. Parents also end up working opposite shifts of one another to avoid the highly expensive rates of childcare. A child is the most important thing to a parent. So imagine how upsetting it is to a parent, who loves their child to the extent that they would do anything for them, to not beable to put them in a safe childcare environment. Most working class parents are not able to do this for their children. One may blame the division of labor as a cause of this. A parent who has the status of working class, cannot get a well enough paying job to support the demanding needs of todays society. They cannot get the benefits that allow them to take a day off if their child is sick. Many parents are terminating from their jobs for missing too much work because of their children. To not be able to hold a steady job, only hinders a person even more when looking for a new occupation. It doesn't seem fair that families who only want the best, are held at such a disadvantage. For the most part these families are hardworking and dedicated. A husband and wife of a working class family, seem to share more gender specific duties than any other class. They do not have the means to hire someone to help with the daily chores, or with the children, so they tend to share the duties equally. How else would they get by? It is so unfortunate, that all the time working class parents spend trying to support their family, takes away any extra time that they may have had to spend with one another.

1. Do you think that the economic trend of the working class will ever change? Why or why not?
2. Poor families struggle greatly with childcare issues, are there any safe support systems currently in place that offer inexpensive child care for these struggling families?
3. Do you think that it is surprising that the gender roles in some working class families are shared? Explain
4. What needs to be done to help a working class family succeed?

Posted by Rita at 9:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Buhendwa Nathalie
SOC 3251 W

Media Journal

Lat night I was watching the show: Two families on Without a Trace, TNT channel. It was a case of two missing teen ages; a black boy and a white girl. Jack Melon the main character is shown along with is colleague Vivian Johnson to have the hardest time because of the racial profiling of both cases. Despite that the two teen ages goes to the same school and disappeared the same day only the girl receive major television coverage. With assistance from FBI agents. The Media provide a showcase that every body is tuned to. The mother of the black boy could not do any thing but watch as her son’s case being given less attention and fewer agents to conduct the search.
Most of the people concern; the FBI agents and the white family feel uncomfortable to witness such a gap and discrimination but non do any thing to stop it, Jack Malone attempt to pressure the Media to ear the case of the black boy as well but his turned down. This case had many points that we covered in our class readings for instance: racial profiling, racial discrimination, gender bias and discrimination, class stereotyping, all of witch were supported and reinforced by both the Media coverage and the authority. The FBI agent choose to put more effort in finding the teen age girls than the boy because of the pressure he received from his superior to solve the case fast. The anchor guy just said it as it was: “a young rich white girl went missing; it is every one’s duty to find her�.
Question
- Any one knows what to do to stop this racial profiling both in the media as well as by the authorities?
- I you were faced with similar situation as Jack Malone what will you do?

Posted by Nathalie Buhendwa at 9:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

In the film The Color of Fear, a group of 8 men (two African American, two Latinos, two Asian American and two Caucasian) were called together to talk about the issues of race that they all have individually with one another and within their own race. It was a small group documentary as they sat around in a circle conversating there true feelings and stories that they all had in their lifetime. There are some very emotional moments within the film as the men all are able to let out what they had wanted to in a long time, but had never had the oppurtunity to do so.

Victor, one the African American men, mentioned how when he was in elementary school his teacher had automatically put him into the low reading level class, when he knew that his reading level surpassed that of the highest level in the class, because he was "black" he was discriminated against.

David, one of the Caucasian men, said that how he didn't see what the problem was with racism and doesn't believe that it exists around where he lives. I thought this was based on his location, many people may not show that they are racist, but deep down inside it is hidden, and who knows what they are thinking besides themselves, and with that David never saw any problem with racism around him because he himself has a diverse amount of close friends. He doesn't realize what else is going on around him, and with that, all of the other 7 men, tell him their stories to show him that there is a problem today with racism.

I personally believe that this is one step to shed some more light that racism exists, by letting alot of people know that it is still going on. They don't want to believe it is still going on, so they block that fact from their mind and go on about their day like everyone is treated equally. And when they act upon a stereotype or say a racist comment based on a racist stereotype they deny that they ever did say or did what they did. Once people know what is going on around them, they won't know what they are doing to raise or lower the problem.

Posted by Shakti at 6:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The 1999 film, But I’m a Cheerleader, is a satire of Middle America homophobia. The movie focuses on Megan, an “All American� cheerleader with the perfect boyfriend and the perfect life. The only problem is that Megan’s parents thought she was a lesbian. Her parents sent her to a (for lack of a better phrase) “gay rehab� called True Directions to straighten her out. True Directions focuses mainly on proper gender roles and appreciation for the opposite sex. The boys wear blue and the girls wear pink. The boys spend their days playing sports and chopping wood while the girls engage in domestic activities. The rehabilitation center encourages healthy homosocial contact while using electroshock therapy to shun homosexual behaviors.
This movie feeds into many of the current stereotypes about homosexuals and reactions to homosexuality. Homosexuality was viewed as a mental disorder that needed to be cured by proper role play and many of the homosexuals in the movie conformed to the effeminate/butch stereotypes of gays and lesbians. The fact that “treatment� was considered spending the day watching/playing football displays how deeply rooted notions of masculinity are tied to heterosexuality. Class and status issues are also addressed by the movie. The middle class family would not accept their daughter as she was because that would ruin their picturesque family. The title of the movie even addresses that issue – she can’t be gay because she is a cheerleader. I found it ironic that Megan challenged the ideology that lesbians were butch, but they still thought that baking cookies and moping the floor would turn her straight. This film was very interesting and creative because it mocked normative thinking in a comedy while still sending an important message.

Posted by Christa Nicols at 3:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

It's hard to admit sometimes, but once in a while, I too feel the urge to flip through a People magazine and catch up the gossip. But hiding behind the pictures of Brittany's newly shaved head and the oscar winning styles of the March 5th, 2007 issue is a story on Renee Richards. Apparently the self named "most famous transsexual", I was intrigued. Renee, now 72, had a sex-change operation in 1975. I think the article in general is very good at telling the story with few stereotypical comments. It did however highlight a time in here life of developing a list of "masculine credentials". This was in terms of becoming an eye surgeon, attending Yale, and becoming a nationally ranked amatuer tennis player.
Renee underwent her sex-change during her marriage in which she had a son, and much of the article focuses on the scars coming out of that. Her son, now 35, has mostly come to terms and forgiveness with his mother, although he still calls her dad. Renee talks about her sarrow for the pain and confusion her son had to go through. Another aspect of the story is her life in the public eye. One of her main regrets is pursuing the right to play tennis as a woman, which she fought hard for and won. However, she is now telling her whole story in a book about the second half of her life.

I thought this article was really interesting, especially in terms of questioning sexuality and gender, and how the media and our cuture expects it to be. They talked about her unwillingness to speak to transgendered youth, because, she says, that "it would be presumptious of me to advise people". I think we see so much in the media these days of people speaking out and claiming to know how to help or persuade others because "they've been there". I think it's amazing that she doesn't assume she can help anyone else through such a dramatic change just because she did. This can almost relate back to the Hillary Clinton/Female, and Barack Obama/black issues. We/the media, assume that people that are not white males, have to focus on their differences and speak out for them, and focus on those issues.

Posted by Chelsea B at 10:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I know this link probably won't work, unless you have a Star Tribune account, so my apolologies but it's: http://www.startribune.com/562/v-print/story/1034098

The story is based on the recent comments made by City Council Member Don Samuels. He said North High School should be burned down for poorly educating black males. Samuels is a firm believer in vouchering, moving kids from one district to another, and more funding. The author John Cook (assistant principal at Robbinsdale High) does not think vouchers will work because the issues go way beyond schools and deal directly with social impacts; "[The gap] is not just an educational problem. Rather, it is a biproduct of America's socio-economic, cultural, family and racial crises...If kids could attend the school of their choice there would still be an achievement gap...There would still be an achievement gap due to America's unresolved issues of race and class." (John Cook, from the article, March 5).

We talk alot in class about the laws and institutions that foster racism and discrimination. I think this is an interesting article because it examines the gray area--where laws and funding, even good in intention, will not help. The article really deals with the intersections between race and class. In this case, there are issues beyond the school itself at play; income, family structure, violence, discrimination outside of the school, and other things that plague the inner-city that all aid in continuing the gap. In this case the answer is not as obvious and must be dealt with in peices, thru the community, thru law and thru the school. Also, the article touched on the fact that even if the stakes were evened, there would still be an "expectation" that black males are not as capable and less would be done to encourage their learning. Here is another example of the less obvious racism we talked about in class. It is hard in this day and age to pin point inequalities like these, because the laws SEEM rather fair, but when you look closer there are so many other issues going into the mix, that these problems really must be taken on by everyone rather than the schools alone.

Posted by Shirani Jayasuriya at 10:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Today I was reading the news articles on the WCCO website and came across this one: (http://wcco.com/topstories/local_story_066193629.html). The subject of this article was about how children think of race these days. It was based on an experiment that took place in the 1950s and focused on how children think of race.
I was surprised that of the 21 young black preschoolers who participated in the study 15 of them chose to play with the white dollinstead of the black doll. Many of the preschoolers said that the white doll was the good doll and that the black doll was the bad doll.
This relates to the class because we have been talking about the different stereotypes of genders and how things have changed. Apparently there is still a feeling that black people are the bad people and white people are the good people.

Posted by Nicole at 10:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

After completely writing my media journal for this semester, I was listening to the radio and heard the radio personalities discussing an issue I found much more interesting. The KS95 afternoon hosts discussed a recent statement that Rosie O’Donnell made about American Idol while on the television show The View. To give you a bit of background, Rosie discusses how an overweight, black contestant on American Idol was kicked off the show for allegedly having posed for “scandelous� pictures before entering the contest. However, on this season of American Idol, a “hot� white young lady was accused of the same scandelous actions, yet she is not being disqualified. The link can be found here: http://us.video.aol.com/video.index.adp?mode=1&pmmsid=1862800.

Although Rosie seems to make a joke of the televisions shows “weight-ist and wacist� actions, I feel like she is completely right and compliment her for realizing the fact that our society tends to overlook such drastic discrimination. What better example of institutionalized discrimination than prejudice that is perpetuated in every aspect of one’s socioeconomic life? It is very unfortunate to realize that our media may be the most obvious example of institutionalized discrimination. By portraying and allowing unequal treatment among individuals, it becomes obvious that, unless these portrayals end, inequality will continue to spread through thirty minute segments of racism, violence, cruelty and hatred.

Additionally, American Idol criticized Rosie for “bashing� the top-rated television show this season. I wonder if producers of American Idol are simply afraid of facing the truth that their racism has been recognized and been discussed and critiqued openly. Although I suppose they have nothing to worry about as they bring in millions of dollars in a single evening. Unfortunately, it seems easy to mask racism if you have enough money to cover the discrimination that you are accountable for.

I find it very disappointing that, because of prior statements made by Rosie O’Donnell, this particular statement may be overlooked. I feel that she makes a very valid point that our popular media in the United States perpetuates inequality and discrimination among individuals.
How else would two individuals who participate in the same actions but are of different races and weight be treated completely opposite of one another?
*It is also interesting to note that (as predicted) the white, “attractive� woman is receiving the advantage while the black, “overweight� woman is disadvantaged.*

Posted by ~maggie~ at 10:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/6422581.stm

I found this article interesting. A leading group of anthropologists are claiming words such as "stone age" and "primitive" as offensive to tribal and indigenous people. What really jumped out to me was that there are 150 million tribal people in the world.

Its crazy to think that there are so many people who aren't apart of the "society" that we are all apart of. The big flaw with this article is that the words used do not directly affect the people because of the obvious language difference, and the ambiguity of the words.

Interesting article, I don't know if it pertains to anything specific in class - but its amazing to think of the large amount of people who live in ways we view to be "ancient". I wonder if those numbers will decrease with time.

Posted by Matthew Hoffner at 8:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I chose to investigate the story of the rumors of Barack Obama going to a Muslim extremist school when he grew up. This subject interests me, because we have the chance at having the first black president in the history of our country, and he is being attacked when he hasn’t even been nominated for candidacy. This clip from CNN investigates the rumors of Barack Obama attending a Muslim extremist school in Indonesia. This rumor started from a “conservative magazine� and was blown up by no other than our media. The news clip then investigates Hilary Clinton as part of the reason this issue was blown up so large. CNN actually goes to Jakarta, Indonesia and visit’s the school Obama went to and they find no truth to the rumors. It is a public school in a good part of town, that teaches children with no focus on religion. The school does acknowledge the various religions, but they do not teach religion or hate for that matter. CNN puts all of the Barack Obama rumors to rest with this piece.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JY47URQXU3k

This relates to our class in the way that Barack Obama is the first (potential) black president. I feel he is being targeted not as a candidate, but as a black person. Also, since he was raised as a Muslim, this has another impact on why he is being targeted. This story goes along with the lecture given on 1/25/07. We explored the “Dozen Demons - Dozen Angels� concept in which Obama’s situation relates to quite well. His “inability to fit in,� describes why he is being targeted. He isn’t even a candidate yet, but still he is being targeted. Why? I feel because he is a target because he is the easiest one. Because he was raised a Muslim he is “guilty by association.� The idea that all Muslims are terrorists is completely false, but yet this is portrayed here (even though he is now a Christian). To touch on more, “identity troubles�. Because he is a black man, the entire world sees this before they see a “president�. We never think of a white man running for president as the next white president. Since he is a black man, he faces these troubles that normally would not be faced under the “usual� scenarios.

Posted by Belal Muwahid at 7:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr001=yoiqsju0h1.app7b&page=NewsArticle&id=6487&news_iv_ctrl=1261

This article is about John Amaechi becoming the first male professional basketball player to come out as being homosexual. He is the 6th in the 4 major pro sports to do so. This also coincided witht he release of his book "Man in The Middle". He talked about keeping his secret, and having to hear plenty of gay bashing while in the league. Most of the reaction to his revelation was positive, although it was said that he violated the trust of the locker room by keeping his orientation covert. Tim Hardaway was his biggest critic, he decried homosexuality and said it had no place in the world or country. Although reaction was posiitive to Amaechi people though this was career suicide for Hardaway and would always tarnish his image in the eyes of most observers. Hardaway also was banished from the NBA All Star Weekend after his comments.

This article brings up the point that sports like football and basketball are seen as being masculine and that homosexuality among males is seen as being less masculine. Playing in the NBA is something that many can not imagine a gay person doing, or imagine players in the NBA being gay. Although there was some negative reaction I found it surprising how positively this was received by most of the media and general public. It is intruiging that Hardaway who is speaking positively about the dominant culture of heterosexuality is the one that is viewed negatively. Still though there is definitely a problem if you look at this case in juxtaposition with Sheryl Swoopes who came out as an active player in the WNBA, and received nothing negative, and just went on as if nothing happened. This is because the lesbian players are perceived as maybe more masculine in the competitive realm of athletics, as well as many female players being perceived as homosexual even if it is not the case often. Although the reaction was positive after the fact mostly, I thnk it might be a lot different if Amaechi was still in the league, and people would still have be around him in the locker room and compete against him on the court. Also I think the possibility is very high that he would be blackballed from the league since he was just a marginal player and no one would have made any fuss if he never made the NBA in the first place.

Posted by Paul Cogliano at 2:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

What makes an American, is it the race, the will, or something else? People tend to have their own views, some say that true Americans are the Natives; on the other hand, one might argue and say that an American is anyone who is born on the soil of the America.
The documentary film, The Color of Fear, we watched on Tuesday felt as if the whites were the main reason why minority groups are not able to move forward. It is in a way funny; when minority member succeeds it is because of his/her will power to be better, to get more out of life. On the other hand when minority member fails to achieve his goals it is because there is a ‘white’ guy in the way, “blocking the progress, the road� to ones success.

Another thing I noticed while watching this film was how people tend to judge other people based on their appearance. This appearance-judgment was spread trough all the races, almost every member in the group said that they felt isolated from time to time because of another person who was different race than they are. Some group members said that they even felt afraid of some people based on their race and the appearance.
Generalization is the lost thing I noticed in this film. As the film went on, one could clearly see that members in the groups were generalizing other members based on their race. One member said that he was told by his family members that ‘one race’ is problematic, and that ‘another’ race was the race they should bond with. In a way this is sad that people still feel this way; but, in my opinion the people who tend to practice this are most likely less educated and stubborn, are unable to realize that race has nothing to do with good or bad.

Posted by Fahrudin at 12:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I couldn't help but notice the typical Clinton reference in today's news. Just as the article title describes, Hillary Clinton has made a push for women to help in her 2008 presidential campaign. On Tuesday, February 6, 2007, Megan Shannon of All Headline News reports that Clinton made a specific request for increased female activism in her 2008 campaign [http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7006665084] . The article struck me as slightly frustrating. Throughout the early campaigning, it seems as though Clinton is running more on a platform of female activism than the overwhelming political issues facing our nation today. Forget the war, taxes, health care, or education, Clinton seems to be running mostly on her femininity.

There are a few references that are especially interesting regarding this article. Clinton is reported saying, "Today, women are a majority of the voters, a majority of students in college, and we are a growing presence in the Congress. But there are still far too few women in leadership positions." Although the advancement and rights of women today is an important issue, Clinton seems to be entirely excluding half of the population from her campaign. By stating that "we are a growing presence in the Congress," she reaches the women of America on a personal level. She doesn't seem all that concerned about including any male concerns for female advancement though. She makes it seem as if there is a battle line between men and women and it is impossible to work together toward a common cause.

The more that Clinton's campaign develops, the more it seems she is running as a one-issue candidate. The female factor in the 2008 election is being stressed again and again, and I believe it is pushing democracy and female rights away from their purpose. The advancement of women is primarily concerned with providing women the ability to attain equal opportunity. When Clinton is pushing for support based on the fact that she is potentially the first female president, she contradicts the fact that she may be qualified for this position. Women’s rights should be concerned about attaining positions based on qualification, not affirmative action.

In no sense am I indicating that female rights isn’t an important plank in a candidate’s platform. Personally, I have no bias to vote either male or female in the upcoming campaign. I would just like to see Clinton run based on qualification instead of femininity.

I found this article to highly correlate with our discussion in lecture regarding race and gender in politics. I just thought I could add a new perspective to the discussion.

Dan S
schop020@umn.edu
SOC 3251

Posted by Dan S at 11:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

When I first read the article on Rachel Jamison in the MNdaily, I was in completely awestruck. The article talks about sexual assaults on Jamison during her study abroad program in Tanzania, and the lack of support from the University of Minnesota center.

Having a bunch of friends from Tanzania, I have had the opportunity of learning about Tanzania, and relating to it from a perspective of a native. Anecdotes from friends had led me to imagine Tanzania as being one of the countries where white is still considered a better color. It might not be explicitly said, but white skinned people are seen either as either better human beings or filthy rich upper class. One of my very close friends told me about the royal treatment they gave to the American people in Tanzania. In the same line of thinking, Jamison believes the main reason for being the target of assault could have been her body type - tall, light skinned, and full figured, which attracted some African men.

Such incidents make me realize the importance of teaching about races, class, and gender; not only in American context, but also from the perspective of international relations and globalization. However, the incident in question forced me to question the mind set of the assaulted. I know about one very similar incident as described in the article happening at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, which was laughed away by the woman who had been assaulted.

In their recent study (AAUW 2006) on sexual harassment at colleges and universities, the AAUW reported:
• 62% of female college students and 61% of male college students report having been sexually harassed at their university.
• 66% of college students know someone personally who was harassed.
• 10% or less of student sexual harassment victims attempt to report their experiences to a university employee.
• 35% or more of college students who experience sexual harassment do not tell anyone about their experiences.
• 80% of students who experienced sexual harassment report being harassed by another student or former student.
• 39% of students who experienced sexual harassment say the incident or incidents occurred in the dorm.
• 51% of male college students admit to sexually harassing someone in college, with 22% admitting to harassing someone often or occasionally.
• 31% of female college students admit to harassing someone in college.

In spite of the small scope of the statistics, they show a rough idea of what the American education experience brings. The fact that sexual harassment policies and their implementation is highly critical is an obvious outcome of this incident, but the spotlight that Tanzania is under from this and other similar incidents is what I want to question. How much is this seen as a racial controversy rather than harassment? How would it be different if some similar incidents happened in a European country?

I cannot possible imagine the extent to which situations might be different or similar in other countries, but it seems that there are a lot of obstacles that race, class, and gender put in front of us, in order to be United Nations, let alone the idea of one United Nation.

Posted by Jain at 11:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A couple of weekends ago, I went to the Science Museum to see the new race exhibit. I only wanted to go there so that I could do this Media Journal but when I got there, I was engulfed in everything that was going on. There were many different displays of the inequalities within the U.S. There were two parts of the museum that caught my eye the most. One was the photo of a group of people of different races wearing T-shirts with different words of what they have been called throughout history. The one white person had the same name throughout history: White. Even though every single human being has a little bit of African in them, we still treat people who are not "white" as different. There is nothing different between us, studies have shown that intelligence, behavior, and physical abilities are NOT different between races but yet we still treat people who are not "white" as being inferior to us. The other interesting part of the exhibit was the pictures that line the wall towards the back of the room. There were different people from different backgrounds, races, countries. They all had written something about themselves and what they liked about themselves. There were a few comical ones, some that were unreadable (written by a kid), and a few that explained of hardships. To see how other people felt underneath their skin really interested me because I am white and I have no idea what it is like to feel as different and discriminated against as they do.

I thought the exhibit showed a lot of interesting view points of society and how it discriminates against people of minorities but I thought there were some flaws. The biggest was that the exhibit widely showed what it was like in the United States when it comes to racism and discriminatory practices. I would like to see what it is like in other places. Is there as much racism as there is here in Japan, Russia, Germany, Australia, etc.?

Posted by Brandi at 9:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Recently there has been some news about a supposed astronaut love triangle involving astronauts Liza Nowek and WIlliam Oefelein. The jist of the story is that Liza found an email from Williams other girlfriend, and proceeded with a 900-mile roadtrip in order to confront her about it. But let's leave the rumors and gossip alone and focus on the main issue here. Here is a link to an article about the story:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/07/washington/07astronaut.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

It just seems that this story, which is really a non-story, got blown way out of proportion just because the astronaut in question is a woman. Just because she is a woman, her action to go confront this girl was viewed as emotional, and irrational. If it had been a man, it wouldn't have been a big deal, and would have remained a non-issue. This is really a private matter that needs to be worked out between the three of them, and not a national news story.

Posted by Joseph Wax at 1:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I did my media journal on a book called "The Street" by Ann Petry. It is about a black women who is trying to work and handle the pressures of being a single mother. This women, Lutie, has race, class, AND gender working against her, and this book exposes the discrimination she faces in each of these aspects.

One of the focuses of this book is that of the "American Dream," the idea that, in America, if you work hard enough, you can do whatever you want to do. Unfortunately, this is not reality for many Americans. At the start of the story, Lutie is working for a wealthy white family who engrain the idea of the American dream into her head, and she becomes obsessed with it. Lutie moves her son into an apartment and begins to plan how she is going to save money and slowly move up in life assuming she maintains a great work ethic. However, as the story progresses, it becomes clear that no matter how long Lutie works, no matter how many jobs she takes on, and no matter how well she tries to track her expenses, there is never any money left over to put into any kind of savings. Additionally, Lutie is exposed to very obvious sexism and almost raped twice. She lives in a horrible run-down apartment in a very poor part of Harlem. As a physical reminder of the inequality Lutie dealt with, the street she lived on symbolized the way of life she and many others had been predestined to endure for their entire lives. The street was a breeding area for filth, corruption, racism, sexism, economic stereotypes, and a general sense of hopelessness that was created by the culmination of all of these. Once people entered the street, they stood very little chance of ever leaving due to the cycle of poverty and desitution that held them back. Slowly, Lutie begins to realize the reality of her destiny and she becomes full of anger. She eventually kills a man who treats her like a prostitute and ends up worse than when she first set out to fulfill the American dream.

What I like about this book is how real it is. There is no sugar coating to the story- it is straight forward, depressing, blunt, and does not attempt to justify or explain racism, sexism, or class discrimination. I actually felt extremely guilty for my success in life after reading this book because although I am female, I am also white and of the upper class, and I really don't face anything even close to the discrimination that Lutie did. It made me sick realizing how hopeless her situation was and how nothing she could possibly do would turn that around. It is amazing to me that becoming successful in life seems so easy to us while people like Lutie have to struggle so hard for literally nothing in return. I highly recommend this book- it is well written and it is very precise and blunt. It has certainly changed my perspective on a lot of things.

Posted by Brit at 12:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I read in the March 4th edition of the Star Tribune an article in the Sports section entitled, “Diversity makes staff stand out.� This is a link to the article: http://www.startribune.com/512/story/1032386.html

The story told how new Gophers football coach Tim Brewster has hired six full-time black assistant coaches. Brewster has a total of nine full-time assistant coaches. The staff of Tim Brewster currently is tied for the highest number of minority football coaches in Bowl Championship college football teams. In the past, the Gophers athletic department has been criticized for its lack of minority coaches. Today it still currently has no minority head coaches. Brewster said his hiring decisions were based on the candidate’s ability to coach, recruit, and also connect with athletes. He said the ability of a coach to mentor students was also important.

As we have discussed in class, minorities in positions of power are often disproportionately left out. For example, African-American student athletes make up 46.1 percent of NCAA football players, yet the proportion of minority head and assistant coaches in college football is much less. Even though there are more minority assistant coaches on the Gophers staff, the head coach of the football team is white. I think the cause of the general inequality in college football is the same as in other areas we have discussed in class; it is related to the ideas of white privilege and minority disadvantage. Racial stereotyping has probably played an important role in this development.

Posted by E. Stewart at 10:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Here's an editorial I read in the Daily today (third one down): http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2007/03/06/71054

The author, a Caucasian lawyer who represents Asian-American immigrants, was shocked when he found out how many of them expressed racist views toward African Americans. But as he examined it more, he discovered that this wasn’t just uneducated bigotry. Many of these people had been the systematic victims of crime perpetrated largely by African American men in their communities.

This raised some interesting questions for me. Is racism as a response to negative experiences still racism? And if so, can you call it unjustified? The problem, of course, is one of stereotyping. Just because some African American men had victimized these people, doesn't necessarily mean that all African American men were bad and would continue to victimize them.

But that doesn't change the perceptions or experiences of these Asian-Americans. From their perspective, they were the victims and targets of primarily African-American criminals. Do we minimize their pain, and dismiss their experiences? Do we criticize them for directing animosity towards African Americans in general when so many of their experiences with them are negative?

I think the short answer that many people will toss out is "Yes, we should. Racism is bad, and they're misguided for stereotyping people."

But I'm not so sure. It's easy to ride a moral high horse when you're not the victim. I'm trying to put myself in their shoes. I think that it's a natural response to be wary of people who look like a person that victimized you, especially if it's repeated over time, and especially if your friends and family all have similar experiences. It's also easy to tell people that they should rise above such experiences, without having been in that position yourself.

I'm not sure there's an easy answer.

Posted by Cam at 7:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The other day, I watched the Tyra Banks show and it was an episode about racism and who has it worse. The audience was divided into racial groups of White, Black, Muslim, Latino and Asian people. Tyra also had five guests from these different racial groups who participated in a random focus group in order to determine which race had it worse based on first impressions. The five women from the stage stood before the focus group while a moderator asked questions like, “Which woman do you think would have a PhD,� and “Who would you prefer not to sit next to on a plane?� “Which one is more likely to be on Welfare and be a single parent?� “Which girl was likely to be a maid?� The answers, of course were not surprising because even when the moderator was asking the questions I knew the answers. What was interesting was the focus group knew these were stereotypes and what not but most of them admitted to believing them and using them to judge people. One lady even went on to mention about how she feels about Muslims is because of how the media portrays them and even though she knows it's not true. Anyway, then it was time to answer the question: Who has it worse? And every race believed that they had it worse. It need up being the black girl and the Muslim girl debating who has it worse and one of the arguments that was given by the black girl was that Muslims have mostly being suffering since 911 but Black have been suffering for centuries. I thought that statement was quite true and Tyra invited some race experts who confirmed that though all the races have it bad; the Black race has it worse, looking at their whole history and backgrounds.

I think it is interesting that Muslims are put in the category of race even though they are a religion but because of what they have been through since 911, society has put them in that category. Another thing I noticed, was even on the Tyra show she did not have any Native/Indian Americans and I have seen this happen so many times especially in the media.

Posted by Wadzanai Msimbe at 5:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

I was looking online at the New York Times when I came across an article on the Pussycat Dolls. They currently are scheduled to have a tv show on CW network tuesday nights. They are looking for the next Pussycat Doll. The article basically talks about this show as another reality show with women walking around wearing bearly any cloths. While the producer states that the show is about female empowerment. He says it's empowering for women to get dressed up like a doll, while a 17 year old girl sees the group and their antics as a giant step backward for women. Here is the link if anyone is intrested in the article.

I feel this article relates back to gender roles that we talked about in class. Women like the Pussycat Dolls make it hard for women to get out of the typical gender roles. These women are very skinny and dress up in cloths that bearly fit them. What are young girls who see these singers suppose to think? The pressure on women to be a certain weight and look a certain way are over powering in our media and culture. And how the producer says this is female empowerment is also shocking to me. I do not understand how these women are empowered by dressing in bearly anything and dancing around on stage. I agree with the 17 year old, I feel this is a giant step backward for women.

Posted by Emily at 2:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

While looking for topics to write a media journal on, I came across a letter to the editor from an article in the Collegiate Times titled, "Black History Month Is Racist By Definition." I found the title ignorant enough, and relevant enough, that I read the whole web-page.

http://www.collegiatetimes.com/news/2/ARTICLE/8589/2007-02-23.html

The author of the primary response, Clint Camealy, argues the idea of creating "White History Month," where he could honor such figures as George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. After suggesting other options which he all deems as "terrible ideas," he suggest focusing on holidays for specific people and not for whole races. Before reading the responses to his letter, I recalled how this topic had been mentioned in class. Every day is "White History Month."

The second part of the web-page has the response to Clint's rant. As expected, people made comments about how every month is white history month and how Clint was just being ignorant. Clint is a perfect example of the "Whiteness Theory." Whether he recognizes it or not, he sees being white as "natural" and doesn't recognize he is more privileged as a white man. It sounds as if he sees "Black History Month" as unnecessary and obtrusive. It could be similar to the situation in the in-class video we saw, where the white man was told that he couldn't see the inequality because being white, he could not relate to the other people's situations.

Posted by Patrick Steidl at 11:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

This weekend I watched an old episode on race from the Tyra Banks show. She has been conducting a piece called the "Focus on Race Series". This episode can be found at http://telepicturesblog.warnerbros.com/tyrashow/2007/02/focus_on_race_series.html. One particular part of this episode was discussing racism within one race. Tyra interviewed a black man who felt he was cursed and felt hatred toward the black race. She also talked to a white female who hated the caucasian race, and an Indian who felt disgust for her own culture. While these stories were confusing and hurtful, it showed that racist stereotypes feed on not only other races, but within their own.

I have first hand experienced racism between Mexicans concerning bilingual or English speaking only. This racism is a strong example of how negative stereotypes effect everyone. Social construction is unsolvable when one race or class cannot overcome stereotypes. The most interesting case to me, was the African American man who truly felt disgusting. He could not even look at himself in the mirror because of the shame he felt. Tyra had her makeup artists make him appear caucasian to see if he would feel any happier about himself. The whole day he was overjoyed to be removed from his dark skin. These illusions of a better life hold equality back. This episode was just a brutal reminder of that fact.

Posted by Vanessa Pacheco at 10:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Right now Wimbledon is making waves in sport’s news for finally upping the prize money for women to what the men will win. Wimbledon’s news release about it can be found at http://www.wimbledon.org/en_GB/news/pressreleases/prizemoney.html. In the first year Wimbledon paid the female winner Billie Jean King only 37.5% of what Rod Laver, the men’s winner, received. The gap has been lessening over the years and this will be the first year that it is equal.

This seems like a logical trend. Women are definitely underrepresented in high paying jobs and in many cases get paid less than men for the same job. Just like the disparity in the Wimbledon prize, this difference has been decreasing in other jobs. On one of the lecture slides from class, there is a graph illustrating the closing gap between female and male’s annual earnings. In the Wimbledon article, it was even pointed out how the change was coming at an appropriate time. It seems as if they finally realized that it is less acceptable to be sexist about pay. One thing that bothered me about the article was how blase' the author was about the whole issue. In the end it was mentioned that "they believed this positive step will be widely welcomed." Once again language is being used to influence perceptions on a situation. To me using the word "believe" leaves it open to be a controversy. It suggests that maybe paying women equally is not the right thing, but they will just try it anyways.

I like to see women getting equally rewarded in the sports world. Women are far to underrepresented in sports. Hopefully the steps Wimbledon took will bring this issue into the light and do some to help women's sports along. Wimbledon made the point that the tournament has women and men competing in the same event at the same time. I think it is important that people are finally starting to recognize that when a women does that same thing a man does, she had better get the same pay for it.

Posted by Sally at 9:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

I read an article in a recent Time magazine in which the author makes the claim that lesbians, such as Ellen DeGeneres and Rosie O'Donnell, now have a place in mainstream, Middle American television. He goes on about how people see Ellen as a "good-natured, likeable, dancy" person who doesn't really flaunt her sexuality, where Rosie O'Donnell is more apt to talk about her sexual preference. The author states that Rosie is more controversial, but that her "coming out" on national television was good for her career. He also talks about how women dominate who watches t.v. and that through socialization, they are more likely to be more intimate, not in a sexual way, with friends and more accepting of lesbians.

The author also makes a rather odd statement in my mind: "It's remarkable how unremarkable it is that a gay person is hosting the Oscars." He seems to have some sort of mindset that a person's sexual preference should and does weigh greatly into their success as a television host. I disagree with this. Yes, sexual preference can create controversy, but is that really what people should be focusing on? Not really. I wonder what kind of article this would be if Rosie was shunned by the majority of the public just for coming out. I don't think it is that remarkable that people are becoming more accepting of sexual preference. It should be that way anyway. Lesbians are more accepted as television hosts, but gay men in television are still being accepted. The shows that have had successful gay roles/men like Will and Grace and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy have been targeted at women as far as gender roles go. The social construct of masculinity clashes with guys who decorate and have sexual relations with other men.

Another disappointing observation I made in reading this article was the language the author used in making his point. He takes about two "dudes" kissing as gross and two "chicks" kissing as a male fantasy. While he is talking about pop culture, he enforces gender roles with these terms. It is just another example of the media influencing the social structure of a culture.

Posted by Angela at 8:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In class we watched a film entitled, “The Color of Fear,� which focused on the reactions of eight men when they were placed in a room with men of different ethnicities. For two days the topic of race was discussed in order to understand the inequalities and discrimination that occurs in the United States.

As tensions built up in the room, the conversations between the men became increasingly more powerful. I really enjoyed listening to the intensity that grew from the conversations that took place between the white Californian and the black/native American. The white man was so ignorant to see the daily discrimination that is faced by minority groups. He even ended up blaming minority groups for their inequalities. He commented that all men stand on their own. After making this comment, the black/native American stood up in outrage and yelled, “We do NOT stand on our own! Some men stand on other men!� Although this is a sad realization, the truth is that by pushing others into poverty, the rich can get richer; the European Americans can climb the economic latter.

One of the best points made in the film took place near the end of the portion that we viewed in class. The white Californian was discussing his idea on inequalities. He believed it was unfair that universities and corporations should save a certain amount of positions for minority groups. The point that was made by another individual was that we should stop pointing the finger at girls and minorities for taking the available jobs and rather we should blame corporations. Many corporations are leaving the country in order to find cheaper labor, however, this leaves our country with fewer job positions. I thought this was a miraculous point. Why should white males receive the available jobs when there is a lack of positions available? Why do minorities and girls get blamed rather than looking at the bigger picture to see who really is taking the jobs away?

Another point that was made over and over in the film was that whites do not have to think of themselves as a minority. When they think of themselves, they think in terms of being a human being or and American citizen. However, minorities have a very different mind set. When they think of themselves they think in terms of race and ethnicity. It was so interesting to hear the Japanese man say that when he applied for a passport he refused to claim himself as an American even though he was born and raised in America. It seemed to be an insult to call himself American. As the Chinese man stated, “In China, America means white.�

This film showed some great examples of how racism occurs in America. Not only are white individuals discriminating against minorities but racism occurs between minority groups. Throughout the interactions between the men it was interesting to see how the men reacted when their stereotypical ideas were confronted. I thought this was a very educational and intriguing video; however, if this situation were to be played out again in the future I would like to see some women involved in the conversations to see their point of view and what different inequalities and fears they face.

Posted by Lacey at 7:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This weekend, I saw the film Zodiac, which chronicles a murderer during the 1960’s and 1970’s who kills couples in areas surrounding San Francisco, California. Somewhere at each scene, Zodiac leaves a symbol identifying himself as the assassin. Zodiac also writes letters to a major newspaper confessing his crimes and requesting that the paper publish the cryptograms he includes in his letters, with the threat that he will kill again. The newspaper constantly gives into his demands, while publishing articles speculating about who he really is. Throughout Zodiac, there are three main intersections of race, class, and sexuality.
After Zodiac commits his first murder, he is immediately suspected to be of African-American descent by the newspaper staff and by the authorities as well. A warning goes out to the state of California, informing citizens that the unknown killer is black. However, subsequent further investigation and interviews, it is established that Zodiac is a white male. This information is relayed to the papers and radio stations, but the assumption that Zodiac is a black man still presents itself through the media. The assumption that Zodiac is black illustrates the racism that was rampant during the Civil Rights Era of the mid to late twentieth century. Almost instantaneously, white citizens of California supposed that the killer had to have been non-white because of the incredibly horrifying crimes he committed, which were all against whites too.
The character of Paul Avery, a writer for the newspaper following the Zodiac’s murders, composes an article that was published in the paper that classifies Zodiac as a “latent homosexual� without any evidence establishing him as such. This postulation utilized by Avery as an insult in his article, is indicative of the societal view that homosexuality is abnormal and an unacceptable form of sexuality that should not exist. Avery makes this assumption about Zodiac’s sexual orientation in order to simply obtain more attention from readers and to create more hatred against the murderer he portrays as extremely troubled.
Finally, the movie reveals possible Zodiac suspects as middle-aged men of low class status. Authorities investigate the main suspect for the crimes, who is guilty based on evidence that has been uncovered. The investigators arrive at Zodiac’s house, or trailer rather, only to enter and find a complete mess of rodents and insects feasting on Zodiac’s belongings. Thus, the media again depicts Zodiac in a stereotype that the audience cannot help but hate based on his perceived and assumed background.
The goal of the media through the film was designed to make the viewers strongly dislike the Zodiac killer. It also follows that an audience presented with such biased information representative of a person about whom they are unknowledgeable will be inclined to believe any ideas about that person, whether good or bad. The audience will tend to imagine such a figure like Zodiac in the worst possible fashion, because that is how we view criminals in society.

Posted by Ashley S at 7:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Lou Dobbs Tonight on CNN this afternoon ran several pieces on illegal immigration and how several major presidential candidates are beginning to take position on this issue. It was not so much the content of the segments that were so striking, but the rhetoric of this and all immigration coverage. While watching how CNN connected illegal immigration to gang violence and a "new American mafia", I began wondering how different the coverage would be without the term "illegal alien". Without a doubt many conversations about border control and immigration issues would look much different if popular media used 'undocumented workers' instead. Illegal alien and undocumented worker convey two separate messages about tolerance and inequality.

We have discussed the power of language and the media in issues of social stratification and it is particularly evident regarding immigration. Using the term illegal to describe a human being immediately identifies them as an 'criminal' whether or not those individuals are making honest attempts at citizenship or living peacefully in the United States. How can a human by nature be illegal? If what makes them 'illegal' in this country is the absence of proper documentation, why not use the obvious and more descriptive term 'undocumented?'

Even more obvious is the use of 'alien', which instantly identifies undocumented workers as an other and foreign. Even though 'alien' references The Alien and Sedition Acts, many Americans seem to connect the term with science fiction and a being from outer space. Using workers again clarifies the current situation and states the reality that the majority of people come to the United States seeking work and economic relief.

I argue that the current administration continues to use this term as a way to generate unnecessary fear and intolerance for the immigrant population in the U.S. Unable to control an issue resulting from free-market trade and globalization, by treating undocumented workers as illegal aliens the issue moves to the individual level. The issue becomes individuals being deviant from the American hardworking honest ethic rather than a systemic political oppression of a population.

Many organizations are beginning to speak out about the usage of illegal alien and illegal immigration both in popular media and in current legislation. It is much easier for the major media outlets like CNN to connect illegal aliens to gang violence since they are already seen as criminals. However, 'undocumented workers' eliminates the swirling negativity and oppression around immigration. I urge everyone to consider how conversations around immigration would be largely different if we witnessed a change in language.

Posted by Amy D at 5:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

While doing Research, I've come across an interesting article to take a look at.

The name of the article is Snakes and Leaders: Hegemonic Masculinity in Ruling-class Boys' Boarding school.
it can be accessed sociological abstracts in the Library database.
http://www-md3.csa.com/ids70/results.php?SID=7e6e62caf03b669a791e74424e1c7fe6&id=3

The article looks at a boys' boarding school where bulling is being addressed. It's argued that bulling is a norm/ inherit in boys' boarding school and is an important part of making ruling-class men. Using life-history methods with available biographical material, the article shows that ruling-class schooling of boys in boarding schools involves "sending away" & initial loneliness, bonding in groups demanding allegiance, attachment to tradition, subjection to hierarchy & progress upward through it, group ridiculing & punishment of sensitiveness & close relationships, severe sanctions against difference, brutal bodily discipline, & inculcating competitive individualism. Brutalization & "hardening" are essential to all these processes & are characteristic of ruling-class masculinity.

Considering the society we live in and the dominance of males, especially white males, I don't know if this environment is a healthy one to be promoting. I think it's fueling the wrong Ideas of masculinity and class.

Posted by Grant Heuke at 10:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

While reading the news I stumbled upon an article that brings up some interesting looks at homophobia in American culture. Here, we have Anne Coulter (ultra-conservative columnist) calling John Edwards (Democratic presedential candidate) a faggot (reminds me of my playground days). I find turmoil here. Ms. Coulter seems to think that her proclamation of what she believes Mr. Edwards' sexual preference to be is a high quality insult. Makes about as much logical sense as him insulting her preference of black or green tea. Why is this an insult is the question I would like to ponder.

The problem with being a faggot is the equivalent problem with being a girl. Not so much that girls and faggots are bad people, as that they are exactly what men must fight not to be. To be one of those is to fail to abide to societies' masculine ideal. Namely, that a man should be stoic, strong, heterosexual, etc. Throughout elementary school, high school or until you grow out of it (unlike Ms. Coulter) accusing a man of failing to be a man is the best insult you can come up with. If a man does anything resembling feminity, such as wear pink, say "cute," sing soprano, or cheer for the Packers they are bound to get called a homo, fag, or sissy by their more homophobic friends. This is the angle that American society has played on faggotedness and why Anne Coulter thinks that she is actually insulting him. She is likely trying to communicate that she thinks he is a wuss or chicken in some sense but I don't really know.

Posted by Jon at 11:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The 10 pm broadcasting of the CBS news, has a segment called, In The Know: Good Question, which focuses on an issue that relates to the general public. On February 9th, the In The Know question was: Why do men make more money than women? Ben Tracy was the reporter for this storyline. He gathered information from random people on the street, both men and women, and he also interviewed Pat Hedberg, a St. Thomas business professor. The main focus of the segment was discovering if men make more money than women is true. The answer is yes; there is a gender gap come payday. For every dollor that a man makes, a women only makes 0.77 cents. Unfortunately, this statistic may be misleading because this pay disparity represents what men and women make on average, not for the exact same job. However, for the most part, men do make more. The median pay for men is approximately $41,000, for women it is $10,000 less. Pat Hedberg listed off a few reasons to why women get smaller checks. For one, women tend to go in and out of the workforce more often than men. Men don't tend to have the juggling act of homemaker, mother, and career woman. Women also seek more flexible jobs, which in return doesn't result in the best pay. This pay difference is a bit discriminating. Women rarely get the opportunity of advancement to become CEO's or high executives within companies. It's unfortunate that men and women work in such gender segregated occupations. To close this gap of gender inequalities within the workforce, women are compensated with maternity leave, and should try to negotiate salaries more. This news clip stated that men are eight times more likely to challenge job offers. This segment really did not surprise me. Although, we are getting closer on closing the pay gap, we are not there yet, and therefore the question of why women get smaller pay checks still remains. If a woman can do a job just as well as a man, there should be no difference at all.

Posted by Rita at 6:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

On February 20th, we watched the film "The Color of Fear". This film documented eight men from different ethnicities who spent a weekend discussing their experiences of race with one another. Throughout the weekend these eight men of Asian, European, Latino and African descent presented their personal experiences with race issues and the pain that accompanied it. They attempted to understand each others pain and to trust one another, but found it was often very difficult. The discussions became quite intense and emotional, and as a member of the audience, even fearful.

One of the main topics of discussion was regarding what makes someone an American. To be an American meant to be born, raised and educated in America according to these eight men. Even though all eight men were American, many of them still wanted to be identified as "African American" or "Chinese American". Identifying as just "American" denies one of who they are. There is no American ethnicity; being American means giving up your ethnicity. The eight men also discussed that to be "American" means to be white, and to be "white" means to be human. This topic related to the American civic identity that we talked about in class. Whiteness is associated with what it means to be American and is also considered the norm. Everyone is supposed to act white to fit in with society, and it is those of non-white cultures that stand out.

This film was also a perfect example of how race is a socially constructed category. The culture and the media have a large role in constructing these socially unequal categories or race through language, norms, and expectations. Language is one of the ways in which we subconsciously reinforce as well as reproduce inequalities related to race. Some examples of language that we talked about in class were racial slurs, color symbolism, ethnocentrism, loaded words, labeling, and controversies over speaking English. The media is also one of the ways, possibly the most important, in which inequalities of race are maintained. The media is largely responsible for adjusting our perceptions of race by reinforcing the white middle class. The reason the media conforms to the existing stereotypes is because it is easier than having to challenge them. Because of social categories such as the media and language, white privilege and racial stereotypes gain an immense amount of power. White privilege was also talked about in the film. A few of the men discussed what it meant to be white; having the privilege of being able to blame colored people. They also discussed that black people equate lighter skin with privilege; an idea created and reinforced by the media.

“The Color of Fear� was a wonderful film that took many of the concepts of race we have learned about and transformed them into how they are actually experienced in a white supremacist society. It was very interesting to see the many different perspectives and experiences of race presented by these very diverse eight men.

Posted by Heather Wencel at 9:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I found a clip on CNN.com of Keith Oppernheim looking at the death of quality food choices in some American urban areas. (http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/health/2007/03/01/oppenheim.food.deserts.cnn). The clip shows a 50 year old African American grandmother that has to walk a mile to a dollar store because she doesn't own a car. In order to buy fresh produce she must catch 3 buses to get to the grocery store which is over 2 miles away. Although these areas are food deserts, fast food resturants and liquor stores are plentiful. Half a million people in Chicago have difficulties getting to the grocery stores. Studies show that the driest food deserts are in African American low-income neighborhoods. Blacks travel 50% further than whites to get a grocery.
I think this clip ties in perfectly with the topic of the social inequalities by race and class. The government should realize that food access is a public health issue. It's really interesting to see that these neighborhoods have more liquor stores than grocery stores. Are they saying that liquor is more important than foods to African Americans? It doesn't surprise me that businesses don't want to invest their money into an area where they don't think they can maximize profits but it shouldn't mean they have the right to make it even harder for those who are already economically disadvantaged. The government claims that they give a tax incentives to businesses in urban areas but they should do more because everyone has a right to public access to food. A black man's dollar shouldn't be worth less than a white man's.

Posted by Amanda at 11:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)

An article by Matthew Lee of the Associated Press on www.yahoo.com touched on the current administration's war on drugs and the statement by the State Department that anti-terror allies to U.S. were falling short in their anti-drug efforts, and perennial foes were not cooperating with the U.S. to alleviate these problems. The department released its annual global survey of the drug war, and said that massive opium poppy production (the main ingredient in heroin) in Afghanistan continued to pose a major threat due to its links with groups such as the Taliban. It was stated that "There is strong evidence that narcotics trafficking is linked to the Taliban insurgency. These links between drug traffickers and anti-government forces threaten regional stability." Other allied nations, Pakistan and Colombia, suffer from many levels of corruption by small local officials and are not preventing drug production at a rate acceptable to the U.S. Members of the "Axis of Evil" Iran and North Korea also harbor and promote drug trafficking, according to the State Department. Iran was chided on its lack of enacting or enforcing laws to decrease demand that has resulted in what the report said "can only be called an epidemic of opiate abuse."

In class on March 1st we discussed the War on Crime that is being waged in America, and it is essentially a war on minorities and drug users. The result of this initiative has essentially left American prisons over-capacity, facilities releasing offenders early, and the disenfranchisement of felons (African-Americans were targeted when this law was passed). The political face of this campaign forces the government to try and regulate other countries and how they are dealing with drugs in their own country. I find it appalling that we choose to focus on the problems of other countries before our own. If the War on Crime is imperative to the success of the U.S., shouldn't we try and focus on preventing violent crime and allocate resources toward rehabilitation programs rather than being a watchdog on other countries and their drug problems? This article shows that our government is pre-occupied with what everyone else is doing rather than what we are doing here at home. As we discussed in class, American's are at a greater risk of being killed during violent crimes than members of other nations and have the highest incarceration rate among Japan, Canada, France, and England. Money that was earned by American tax payers should be used to remedy this epidemic by encouraging the use of rehabilitation programs to prevent repeat offenders and thus lower the incarceration rate. In closing, it was an interesting article, but I still have the opinion that the U.S. needs to do more "in home" work before it tells other countries how to handle their drug issues.

Posted by Dave J at 12:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Ok so this isn't a media journal, but I thought that maybe we could start a post online to help everyone with the midterm exam... kind of like a study group but on a blog posting site. My idea (and if anyone has a better suggestion, please, suggest it) is to post questions that you think could be created and placed on the midterm, kind of like the sample questions Eric handed out in class. I know that I would love to have some more questions to use for studying. So I suppose I will start-

1. Compare and contrast the three different theories on social class (Marx, Weber, and Durkheim).

2. Discuss the way that gender is reproduced and reinforced through society and give two specific examples of this reinforcement.

There is no need to answer the question, it's just a way to thoroughly look at the material. Again, if anyone has better suggestions or questions, please add to this or adjust it. I'd love to get some different questions from people. Good luck with your studying!

Posted by Molly Kay at 4:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBacks (0)