Soc. 3251W Race, Class, and Gender

For May 1, I read the readings on Resistance and Social Change by ORE. The three articles I read broke down the stereotypes against Asain Americans, and Latinos. These articles also viewed the studies between "Seeing more than black and white". Mostly, these articles focused on the struggles for minorities to fit the mold of American culture. They show insight to where the future is headed with saying goodbye to the white majority. The most powerful message to me was reading about the beginning of racism through American Indians. I am part Indian so it is important to me that light on shed on what I feel sometimes is overlooked. Looking past Americas racist past, is the first step to finding a new future.

For me, reading these articles was very empowering for me. These feelings were always a part of me, but I never knew that others viewed America in the same way. The black and white world is of course difficult to break through as an Asian American or Latino. The closing statement I read about a teacher illustrating the public llynchings of Mexicans to mostly African American students was powerful, because history is being spread. Minorities can grow together through hardships and learn with each other. My only hope is that minorities can grow together along with the growing minority, Whites. I can only hope that we are becoming closer and closer to an equal society.

Discussion Questions:

1. How can America increase public knowledge of the hardships that Asain Americans and Latinos have survived through?

2. How is it possible for Latinos and Asain Americans to break through the white and black mold of society?

Posted by Vanessa Pacheco at 12:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

In the three Ore readings for May 1, the connecting themes of all the passages relate to oppressed groups in America which do not receive as much publicity as the Black and White conflict does. The first passage focuses on the Asian American population in the U.S. and how they are thought of as recent transplants in this country, no matter how long their family may have been here. This culturally separates them from the general population. From lecture in class we have learned that Asian Americans have the smallest gap in median earnings compared to whites, and generally are seen as the least discriminated against race in America. Does this necessarily mean they are approaching equal footing with the majority? Of course not; Espiritu describes the feminization of Asian American men in the view of the American public as one way in which they are oppressed. This places Asian American women in a precarious position.

They need to choose between supporting the Asian American men and their fight for equality, therefore supporting male privilege within their own culture by standing together against the racial ideologies binding them both, or standing alone to expose the oppression within their own race. It seems to be a no-win situation, as either way women in the culture will end up being the subordinate group.

The last two passages focus more closely on equality; the first deals with seeing more than just black and white races, and the second with gender. Martinez raises the issue of how Hispanics (a broad conglomerate of races, generally referring to Spanish speakers of Latin America) are largely ignored in American culture, from advertising to simply public awareness. She states that by 2050 it is estimated 32 percent of the U.S.’s population will be Latin/Asian/Pacific and Native American, rendering a large portion of the population which is neither black nor white, and the elimination of a white majority in America. With such a large percentage of Americans being characterized in this manner, why are they still so underrepresented in the face of our culture? This answer lies in the popular American ideology that all Hispanics are immigrants and that immigrants are the root of many social problems. This stereotypical view greatly inhibits the ascension of Hispanics up the social ladder. Many people think they are migrant farm workers, when in reality, one quarter of the population of New York City is Latino (and I don’t think there are many farms in the city). This basic attitude will eminently change in the future, as the face of the Latino people becomes increasingly present in American culture.

The passage on gender equality characterizes differences between men and women, in contrast with male and female. Gender is the associated roles of the sexes as based on cultural norms, rather than the physiological differences which differentiate between male and female. Lorber declares that the status of women compared to men is as much of an issue of power and privilege as is the status of people of different races and social classes. The patriarchal society in the U.S. turns a blind eye toward the contributions of women to the success of our nation; most families could not survive without women’s paid work. Women are generally the parent associated with childcare, even though it is shown that men have much more leisure time in comparison. Humans constructed gender as a means to distinguish between the “appropriate� roles of males and females in society; this inherently oppresses women. It is time for equality in America, whether it be racial, gender, or any other means of characterizing a group.

Discussion Questions:
1. Is it possible for minority groups to band together for awareness of their oppression, rather than take part in the 'minority olympics' labeling themselves as the most oppressed?

2. Would changing the ideology concerning the oppression of women by equilibrating gender roles in society be beneficial towards eliminating other types of social oppression?

Posted by Dave J at 11:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

As far as the future is concerned, we always hope that things will improve and that our society will make positive changes. The truth is, that there will probably be separate problems, and of course, they will be unpredictable.

An interesting part of the article was expanding upon the idea of "black and white" in our culture. Obviously, its already not like that right now, but in the future it will change even more. The author discussed that non white/black population will be around 32 percent. Hopefully different cultures will continue to embrace each other.

1. How you do think race relations will change as American culture becomes more integrated?
2. Will there be any economic impacts of an even more diverse America?

Posted by Matthew Hoffner at 11:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/article/3522

This Richard Gere story is filled with many different angles that pertain to class. Richard Gere, attending an AIDS awareness benefit attempted to parody one of his movies by kissing famous Indian star Shilpa Shetty. This, apparently, is a no-no in Indian culture and many Hindu groups protested Gere.

Whats interesting about this is the differences in our cultures. If this story happened in American culture, it wouldn't be as big of an issue. Gere must have assumed that his parody of his movie was universally known. Unfortunately, Shetty is being punished by the government for this.

What is unfortunate here, is this was all at an AIDS benefit. Suddenly, this is ignored and the focus is on the media picking a celebrity and calling them out. This has become a trend in media.

Also, its interesting that public obscenity is illegal in India and that one can be arrested for this.

Posted by Matthew Hoffner at 10:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

An article in Saturday's Star Tribune (http://www.startribune.com/535/story/1149212.html ) was about a new theory Alberto Alesina, an economics professor at Harvard, has come up with. He wants to lower income taxes for women. To even things out he wants to raise them for men. The idea behind this for him is that research has shown many women do not join the labor force because they are more sensitive to taxes than men are. This tax break would help out single women and families. It would be easier for women to be independent. Married men whose taxes increased would still get relief, because his wife's taxes would be lower. It might even lead to men spending more time at home with the kids.

This new tax theory seems like a type of affirmative action. Women are being "righted" for the past wrongs of keeping them out of the labor market. If there had not been past discrimination against women, this plan would not be fair. The idea does seem like it has good intentions, but I do not think it could actually work. I do not know what these studies are that show women remain unemployed because of income tax, but I have never heard this theory before. From class, it seems like women stay home because policies make it harder to get a job, advance in a career, be a working mother, and get equal pay. None of which are related to income tax.
Instead of lower income tax for women and raising it for men, a better policy would be to raise pay for women. Women only make about 75% of what men make, which is clearly not fair. If the policies that make it so hard for women to get equal treatment in the work force were changed, more women would probably work. From what we have talked about in class, the policy I think would be most effective would be one that quits punishing working women for having children. Getting a tax break does not help mothers out when they cannot find a job that will hire her and let her stay home with her young child. There is no clear answer for how to equalize the work force, but I do not think income taxes is it.

Posted by Sally at 9:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

It was pointed out how in the United States race is viewed as being a black and white thing, which seems to be both irrational and problematic. This is something that harkens back to a century or more ago when it was the case that there were few citizens who were not either black or white. Currently though blacks are not even the largest minortiy group, surpassed by hispanics, and the population of non whites or black are projected to surpass 30% during the middle of the century. I t can often have very negative effects when groups of people are ignored like this. Most other groups are grossly underresresented or made to seem non existent by the media. These rare portrayals are also usually likely to be more stereotypical and have a negative impact. A problem that needs to be address is how minorities seem to always be portrayed in extremes and not as more normal with a middle ground in their physical, emotional, and personality characteristics.

Gender inquality continues to exist statistically despite the fact that legal oppositions to women have been removed, as well as Affirmative Action whose #1 benefactor has been white women. Although the typical woman may make relatively the same amount as the typical man, there is a much greater disparity at the top. Female representation is very sparse in positions of hih rank and authority of personal property which is mostly that of a very small percentage of the population that is extremely wealthy. Certain positions especially in the business and corporate world, posiitons of leadership are not seen as female work. There may often be a glass ceiling for a woman. This is problematic though because it seems in many cases advancement would require not really showing feminine qualities which are deemed to be inferior. I don't think the answer is to have men and women act nearly exactly alike. ALso there is the problem that men are more desirable do to the lack of child rearing responsibilities. Some studies though have seemed to show that men are more ambitious career wise, and more competitive, and less emotional which may make them better candidates, although much of these dierences may be societal and not as much biological as perceived by many

What type of affect would increased exposure in the media of minority groups other than blacks have on how they are perceived, and would it affect their social status?

Do you forsee the lines between what are considered to be male and female characteristics to blur as they seem to have, while some argue that a duality is important to society thriving?

Posted by Paul Cogliano at 6:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

I read an article today "Child Welfare Agency is Under Fire", in the New York Times written by Tina Kelley which can be found at the following website, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/25/nyregion/25abuse.html. The article discussed some major problems that New Jersey's child welfare agency is having. Currently, there is a lawsuit be filed against the State Division of Youth and Family Services by one of the programs adoptive mothers. This mother is demanding reform in the states child welfare policy, focusing specifically on medical care for the children that need it. This is not the first time the State Division of Youth and Family Services has been sued. In 1999, Children's Rights, an advocacy group sued the agency for endangering New Jersey's youth by having an inadequete child welfare system.

In response to the 1999 case the welfare agency has been working under a court ordered reform plan. Apparently, there has been slow improvement but for some this is not good enough because the lives of children are still at risk.
The women who is currently sueing the child welfare agency is doing so because of the way the state dealt with her adopted daughter. This little girl was abandoned by her 15 year old mother at 10 months old. The state them put her in the custody of her father. The girl's father was 21 years old at the time and the state gave him custody while ignoring the fact that he had impregnated the mother by statutory rape in the first place. Once in custody of the father the little birls was abused by the burning of her feet and vaginal area. The state ignored reports of abuse when the girl first was sent to a hospital. When the second report of a abuse was sent to the state agency a caseworker went to the girl's home. The abuse was obvious to the caseworker, but the girl was not removed from the father's home until almost a month later. When the girl was finally removed the state placed her into foster care and the dad was completly let off. The agency had failed to even file charges against the father for abuse. The little girl was in and out of failed foster care situations until she began living with her current adopted mother. This mother's main concern is that the welfare agency for children did not treat the girls burns physically or mentally after she was removed from her abusive home, the abuser was never prosecuted, and this type of inadequate childcare is happening to many other New Jersey children.
Throughout the article there are other horrific examples of the failures on the part of the State Division of Youth and Family Services. It is frightening to know that the state issued protection for our children and families in the United States could be so choppy in their policy and practice. Hopefully, with media attention from this current lawsuit there can be a more progressive reform made to this welfare system. Most of all I hope that medical care will be something that these young victims are recieving from these agencies.

Posted by Ann S at 10:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In spite of continuous research and studies done all around the world on social and economic conditions of various countries all over the wold, there are several myths about the developing nations. In this video, Hans Ronling debunks many of the contemporary myths based especially on statistical data around the world.

It is amazing for me to find out the relative courses taken by various countries over the period of past decades. The data representation in forms of definitive curves and plots in the fields of child health in terms of mortality rates, and fertility rates over time showed huge improvements in health conditions in Asian countries, and their dependence on wealth and education as well. The economic growth of most Asian countries has been in the news which makes the considerations in terms of per capita income, GDP growth are less baffling. However, the current universal strategies under way for African social, health, educational, and econimic reforms are proven to be lacking in analysis due to the vast variations in situations of the various countries such as Sierra Leone and South Africa. It is amazing to realize the gap between the contemporary understanding of the world situations and the actual realities.

I was pesonally alarmed to see the relatively higher health conditions for the most part in China as compared to India, since I have been viewing China as highly industrial and polluted environment as compared to the industries in india thriving on the services and marketing based industries. The graph also depicts that there is a lot that needs to be done in India to still curb the population rates and sustain steady economic growth, which China has already achieved to the most part.

Looking at the distribution of health, educational, and economic conditions of countries from Africa also gives a totally new perspective to my knowledge. With several countries on par with most of the developing nations, there is much to be said about the lack of media attention that the progress in Africa is seeing. This is however not to deny the fact that some of the countries in Africa such as Sudan, Sierra Leone, etc. are still in need of a lot of help. I hope this tool becomes a mainstream utility in future analysis and aid in better policy formations and decision making on the part of the more powerful countries and institutions.

Posted by Jain at 12:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here are the "policy memos" your peers created for the social safety net assignment we did today in class. I hope you learned something from the process of putting these together, I, for one, learned a lot from reading them.

Posted by Eric at 10:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

I was on Mother Jones website tonight reading some of the political articles. I came across an interesting blog written about Mexico City. If you are interesting in reading the article it can be found at http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/index.html#4282. and http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2007/04/4054_mexico_city_wil.html.

Though the article was brief it brought up quite a few issues that we have discussed in class, such as class, women's rights, homosexuality and law. What was most important in the article was the fact that I was informed of the fact that in Mexico City Abortion within the first trimester is no legal. Also, same sex marriage has been made legal. Prior to these law changes abortion was not an option in Mexico City except for in situations of rape and when giving birth would ultimately be fatal to a women's health. This is a really big step for women's reproductive rights in Mexico, because Mexico City makes up a fifth of the country's population. The writer of the article, Cameron Scott discusses Mexico's current social state as well. She discusses Mexico's current class system. Scott talks about how there is an incredible income gap among Mexico's people. She represents the wealth of the rich by discussing how they have live in maids and the poor as being the maids living in homes with no floors are running water. Camerons says the poor in Mexico have, "virtually no education or oppurtunities". Which most likely would create a continuous cycle of the class system. The poor are not educated and have no chance to get above their social station and the rich continue to thrive with the excesses. I am not sure what the outlines of this new abortion law are. Mexico is Catholic by majority and this creates a great deal of friction with reproductive rights. In the Catholic relgion birth control is not acceptable. There is great dispute on these new laws in Mexico as there are here in the United States. It will be interesting to see how these new laws effect Mexico as a nation, and perhaps what we can learn from their situation.

Posted by Ann S at 11:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I was looking through the news on Yahoo, and I found a very short article that says the popular mobile phone text messaging is having a negative impact on writing standards, especially on youth. According to the State Examination Commission, the frequency of errors in grammar and punctuation has become a serious concern. This is evidenced by the report of last year's exam performance by 15-year-olds.

In class, we talked about language and how it contains words that are gender bias and the fear of using other languages such as Spanish. This article is somehow related to that because the popular mobile phone text messaging is literately creating a new language. A language with phonetic spelling and almost no punctuation that may threaten the traditional conventions in writing.
I believe this is really a serious problem in society today. As the article pointed out, many people have cell phones and text messaging is very popular, especially among the youths. I personally know friends at the U that send messages through their mobile phones frequently. In addition, when I play online games, I notice people are typing non-dictionary words such as "gonna" instead of "going to" and many other grammatical errors. This common practice has become a habit for them and will implanted to their writings for school projects. For these reasons, I really believe this is a serious problem for kids today and will probably get worse in the future. School must increase the awareness of students and with parents' attention, hopefully kids can identify their errors or distinguish the difference between text messaging and on real writing.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070425/od_nm/ireland_texts_odd_dc;_ylt=Ag0UdT5GCjnzoL6fk_5GqgDMWM0F

Posted by Nhien at 9:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

In class we have been talking about welfare and problems with such social assistance programs. I found this article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070425/ap_on_re_us/a_week_on_food_stamps) describing Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski's effort to show how these programs, including the use of Food Stamps, hardly provide for the basic needs of individuals. Guided by a former food stamp user, the governor went to the grocery store with only $21 to spend for himself for a week's worth of groceries. He quickly was steered away from more expensive organic foods that he usually goes for, like organic bananas, and even had to change from relatively cheap soup to cheaper cups of noodles. In the end, his selections ran over his $21, so he had to put a few items back.
Of course this is just a temporary situation and no one likes to think that people actually do live like this, but the reality is that it happens and to hope that this is not real for some people is to ignore the problem entirely. I like that the governor is doing this because not only is he personally getting a "wake-up" call to the state of our social assistance programs, but so are the public and hopefully the state and national politicians as well. Since the states are responsible for delegation of funds, it is up to local politicians to advocate for these programs. Individuals can make a difference. As college students, many of us know what it is like to have to budget expenses. This is something to remember and advocate for now and in the future when we have more stable incomes. This article was a little bothersome in that it shows how easy it is for our politicians to become removed from the daily life of the average U.S. resident. Like it says in the article, the governor didn't really have any idea how to budget his money or even how to go grocery shopping in that you can find deals and use coupons and such. Overall, I hope this experience encourages social assistance program reforms to better meet the basic needs of all people in the U.S.

Posted by Angela at 7:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In an article on April 23, 2007 in Yahoo! News, Russell Simmons recommended eliminating certain "highly offensive words," consisting of racial slurs and degrading women, from the recording industry, claiming they are "extreme curse words." The article notes that Simmon's recommendation comes less than two weeks after the incident with Don Imus. Simmons asked that the recording and broadcasting industries either remove, delete, or bleep these words. Although the move is voluntary, he hopes there will be "guidelines for lyrical and visual standards." The article is a change from his original stance on the matter, saying that they "may be uncomfortable for some to hear, but our job is not to silence or censor that expression."

Although I don't listen to much from that genre, many songs I do hear seem very obscene. I think that it is an artist's choice what content to have in their songs, but I think a set of guidelines would be a good idea. The things artists say in their albums say a lot about them, and what they are willing to say to sell albums. Constantly falling back on obscenities seems like a cheap way of appealing to the public.

As mentioned in lecture, language is a powerful tool in reinforcing and reproducing advantage and disadvantage. By allowing racial slurs, and other words that tend to act as labels, people become accustom to hearing these words, some using them in their everyday vocabulary. When people, especially youth, hear obscenities in the popular media, they think those words are alright to use, even more so if the person who is using them is their role model. A shift towards more appropriate vocabulary in music could drastically change the outlooks of people, at least those who are that impressionable.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070423/music_nm/usa_hiphop_dc;_ylt=ArcoKQx.6WX5emnVogqO9TOVEhkF

Posted by Patrick Steidl at 12:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBacks (0)

This weekend I went to the Science Museum to see the race exhibit. Overall I thought the exhibit was very interesting. Some of the information was very basic; however, I think it is extremely important to include the basic information because there are a ton of Americans who still do not see the effects of race.

One thing that I did find interesting is a sign that stated that race is only about a hundred years old. It stated that race is a product of humans, which I believe to be true. Humans are very similar to every other human on earth even between races. People have come to separate others based on the color of their skin and therefore it is a product of humans; however, I question that the concept of race is only a hundred years old. To my knowledge inequalities have been occurring in Africa for hundreds of years based on the color of skin. Furthermore, there were inequalities beginning when Europeans first started traveling to America. Native Americans, an often hidden race, was discriminated against based their history, skin tone and culture. Although the concept of race may have become more prominent within the last hundred years, I think it has existed for a long period of time.

My favorite part of the entire exhibit was a wall that was filled with portraits of individuals of mixed ethnicities. Under each pictures, the individual who was photographed wrote a few sentences about themselves. The one that caught my eye in particular was of a woman who I think was Chinese and Irish. Under her picture it stated, “I am not Chinese. I am not Irish. I am the ‘other.� I thought this was such a wonderful point. Why do we always have to claim ourselves as a certain race? The great majority of the population in the United States is not from only one background or another. Instead of acknowledging this fact, most individuals claim themselves as American, which I would consider the ‘other.’ However, as we discussed in class earlier, not everyone is allowed to claim himself or herself as American. It is believed that to be a true American you need to be white. Wouldn’t it be nice to live in a world where the concept of race did not control how people view us? We would not need to choose one ethnicity to identify with, but instead we could be an individual separate of our history: a complete person who lives and breathes without criticism based on appearance.

On a separate note, I just want to share one other portrait just because I thought it was so adorable. It was of a boy who must have been around the age of seven. Under his picture he wrote, “I am part Chinese and part Danish but I don’t tell people I am Danish because they think I am a pastry.� Although I am not going to analyze the meaning of race in the young boy’s comment, I thought other people might enjoy the humor as much as I did.

-Lacey

Posted by Lacey at 10:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

There will be two optional reviews for the final: Sunday, May 6th at 7pm and Friday, May 11th at 7pm. Both review session will be held in Blegen 150. Please come to the review closest to when you will be taking the final exam and come with lots of questions.

As a reminder, you have two options for taking the final exam. First, on Monday, May 7th from 10am to 12am and, second, on Saturday, May 12th from 4pm to 6pm. Both finals will be held in Blegen 150. The final will have the same format as the midterm, but will focus on the readings, lectures, and assignments discussed in the last half of the course.

Posted by Eric at 2:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

According to the MPR website (http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/04/20/healthbill/), the State House has approved a bill for $10 billion to spend on health, about 30 cents out of every state dollar. I found this blurb interesting because it mentioned that Republicans are fighting against the bill because the bill would be "leading toward a government-run health system." I thought that this write-up fit well with the health care section that we are currently studying as it is what we are studying in action right at the moment.

Public funding for abortion also barely passed as the majority in the house, while attempts to raid family planning also failed. Many changes to the welfare system were also proposed, as well as more funding for children's health insurance. I find it interesting to see what our state values within these issues and how our state is duking out what is and is not important. It is also interesting to see how political parties play a large part in how our healthcare is funded in the state.

Posted by Molly Kay at 10:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

In her article "Lurking," from the April 12th edition of the Minnesota Spokesman-Recorder, Vickie Evans-Nash explains how the Minneapolis Lurking Ordinance has come under criticism because of the discriminatory manner that it has been enforced. The ordinance which is part of the Disorderly Conduct Ordinance has been on the books since 1877 and some consider it an important and indispensable tool that police can use to crack down on drug trafficking and prostitution. Others criticize the ordinance, citing the fact that in 2003, 466 of the 800 arrests made were of blacks. Opponents of the ordinance claim that since the ordinance does not explicitly state what "lurking" is, it allows for discrimination on the part of the individual police officers when they are enforcing the ordinance. Lieutenant Amelia Huffman of the Minneapolis Police Department claims that "Loitering is typically loitering for narcotics, loitering for prostitution." She is therefore in support of the ordinance, or at least something like it that would assist the police in cracking down on illegal activities.

I do not think that the ordinance should be repealed, or completely taken off the books. The Minneapolis Police Department has had a tenuous relationship with the African American community for a very long time however, and something needs to be done to address any discrimination that is taking place. Instead of repealing the ordinance, measures should be taken to better define what is meant by "lurking" so that not as much is left up to the discretion of the individual police officers. This would hopefully cut back on any kind of discrimination that is taking place where police officers are specifically targeting young African American males because of their own personal prejudices. It is one of many important race issues in the city of Minneapolis that is not given enough attention. Something needs to be done about the inequalities and injustices that are all too prevalent in our otherwise beautiful and glorious city.

Posted by Stephen Anderson at 8:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

In their articles on the welfare state, both orloff and quadagno find fault in past emphasis on class struggle when understanding welfare states. Orloff focuses on the way that gender relations have influenced policy in welfare states, and how this has in turn affected the state of gender relations. Quadagno also discusses gender inequalities, but also includes some thoughts on how race has influenced and been influenced by the welfare states. Orloff discusses how the welfare state has been responsible for the reproduction of gender hierarchies where the male figure is seen as the head of the household, the main breadwinner, responsible for the economic support of the family. The female figure is seen as the caregiver, responsible for tasks in the home and raising the children. This trend in different welfare states keeps women out of the workforce and increases their dependence on men. Because of the sexist policies of modern welfare states, women experience low participation in the labor market as well as lower rates of wages. Quadagno deals with both gender and race in her article as she uses President Nixon’s Family Assistance Plan of 1969 as a case study. She says some similar things about gender inequalities as Orloff did. She explains that men receive benefits through their participation in the labor market while women gain benefits through their relationship to a male breadwinner. Important to Quadagno’s article is how she confronts the issue of race with regard to the welfare state. She talks about the ways in which welfare has oppressed the black community, and reproduced the legacy of past discrimination. According to Quadagno, due to past discrimination, black workers are not eligible for as much old age insurance as it is determined in relation to previous market earnings. She claims that since the FAP was designed by white males, it would tend to segregate blacks into lower wage jobs, limiting their mobility.

Both Orloff and Quadagno have convincing and evocative articles on the importance of both gender and race in welfare. Orloff’s focus on gender is very insightful as she sheds light on the relationship between gender relations and welfare policy. Welfare policies, while claiming to help impoverished people, actually can act to further their oppression, solidifying the barriers to their mobility. Quadagno’s article was very insightful and helpful in understanding the underlying interests of those making the policy. It showed how welfare policies, specifically those of Nixon’s FAP worked to cement the African American community into a position of servitude in the American economic hierarchy.

Discussions Quests.

1. In her explanation of the Power Resource Theory Quadagno states, “Power resource theory’s emphasis on the balance of power between capital and labor, usually used in comparative welfare state analysis, helps explain why the U.S. never achieved the advanced welfare state status of, say, Sweden� (p. 13). How might the racial climate in the U.S. also be seen as a factor in limiting welfare state status achievement?

2. Were the racist and sexist policies discussed in the article instituted in order to intentionally oppress blacks and women? Or instead were the consequent inequalities merely a result of a maintenance of the status quo?

Posted by Stephen Anderson at 12:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

In 1969, President Nixon began a welfare program titled the family assistance plan or FAP. The feature in this plan that was different from previous plans was that it was designed to help welfare families that helped themselves. In other words, those who qualified for welfare that worked more, were helped more by this plan. Quadagno argues that by giving assistance to low income black males and those females who are giving birth, the family assistance plan is reinforcing male domination over females, and a continuation of white control of the labor force. While Quadagno makes that arguement, she then states that there is evidence that if there is enough of an economic gain through this plan, then it will have the opposite effect. She seems to be somewhat riding the fence on the issue in the introduction.

Quadagno proceeds to spend many pages discussing the three dominant views of the U.S. welfare state. The mass turmoil thesis, in which relief programs are initiated and contracted as the unemployment rate goes up or down. Elite dominance which states that the state acts because the ruling class tells it to. The power resource theory iwhich states that in certain circumstances that working class can use the state to help offset the market inequality.

These statements are all refuted at the end stating that Nixon's failed plan contradicts them. Some feminists believe that welfare plans are a way for continued male domination. The feminists do have a few good points that help confirm that theory in the FAP. By giving aid to working males, and childbearing females, it encourages the view that the men should be in the workforce and the women should stay at home.

Discussion Questions:
1. What parts of the FAP help confirm feminists belief that welfare plans are a way for continued male domination?

2. What are the three dominant theories in regards to the formation of the U.S. welfare state, and how do they differ?

Posted by Joseph Wax at 8:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Radio "shock jock" Don Imus was fired by CBS and NBC after he called the Rutger's women's basketball team "nappy-headed hos" in a broadcast last week. He made a public apology Thrsday evening to the team, and while the team accepted him apology, they still considered his statements to be unacceptable. Imus did not want to make any further comments to any other press but the women on the basketball team, even though there were many other members of the media who wanted to hear from him. (cnn.com AP)

I have been watching a lot of news coverage lately about this incident, hearing a lot of different perspectives. Some people have been angry about the fact that Don Imus lost his job over one monent of uncensorship, other people simply appalled at his racist and sexist remark. It is interesting to think about this remark in the context of free speech, because really it is just an opinion that is technically free to make. But it is a misuse of his power of speech on public television and radio. By being racist and sexist in his comment on public airwaves, he is representing himself and his career very poorly, and he is also representing the companies that advertise on his broadcast stations poorly. Some argue that firing him after the duration of his career is being too harsh and controlling of public free speech, however I think that Don Imus took his power too far and clearly offended a group of people that were targeted by being female and being black. I don't think that it was a bad idea to end Don Imus' career after making that statement because he didn't think before he made it, and he should have been.

Posted by Caroline Y at 3:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

I am sure that most everyone has heard about the Don Imus issue for MSNBC. If not just go to MSNBC.com and look up Don Imus. An overview of the situation is that the morning after the Rutgers women's basketball team lost the championship game Don Imus made some comments about the Rutgers team. He said that the Rutgers players were "rough" women with "tattoos" and that they were some "hard core hoes" "some nappy headed hoes". Well these comments obviously offended the Rutgers women and many other people so after consideration (and a lot of companies threatening to stop advertisements with MSNBC) Don Imus no longer has a show on NBC but apparently the CBS radio program is still considering what to do.

I don't think it should have ever even been a question what to do with Don Imus. There is a video on MSNBC that shows him saying that he wanted people to know that he "is a good man who said a bad thing". Sorry Don, but that just not going to work. Your a racist. If you say racist things you are a racist. I don't understand why it is so hard for people in this country to understand that. Apparently he has said some racist comments in the past as well and it is about time that he sees some reprecussions. I was impressed by the people who organized right away to set the standard that this kind of language in the media is not okay in any circumstance. Al Sharpton said to Imus that "this isn't about if you are a good man" but that this is about "setting the precedent" for what kind of language can be used. In a more general sense if I was NBC I would fire him simply becuase if your job is in the news media field and live, if you have not learned to think before you speak you are just straight bad at your job. He is a liability and I would have fired him a long time ago. In the end I think that is is unfortunate that the Rutgers team had to be in the middle of this but it sets a great example. I am just so happy to see that this type of language was immediatly tagged as sexist and racist and that people demanded results and we got them. The more "i'm not racist...but" people of society who we can make the statement to that, yes you are racist, and no we will not tolerate it the better off everyone in society is.

Posted by Caitlin at 6:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

After several questions in class yesterday, I looked for more information about the various Affirmative Action programs here at the U. Perhaps the easiest program to find information on was the affirmative action program for employment. The University is a substantial government contractor, and as such, has a legal responsibility to develop and publicy disseminate a affirmative action plan for hiring. According to the Universities affirmative action plan for 2006, the purpose of affirmative aciton in employment (Faculty and Staff) is to "remove the barriers that have excluded peoplefrom full participation (in the unversity)". The groups currently covered by affirmative action, defined by
state and federal law, include women, racial minorities, people with disabilities, disabled veterans, veterans of the Vietnam era, recently separated veterans, and other eligible veterans.

Affirmative action in employment "includes the screening of position descriptions and selection criteria to ensure the use of appropriate requirements; comprehensive and inclusive advertising and recruiting efforts; special or targeted recruiting in addition to traditional methods; and gender-neutral and culturally bias-free criteria in hiring, performance evaluation, and termination, thereby making the entire system fair to all individuals.
Employment and education requirements are not lowered." "The University is required under federal law,
specifically Executive Order 11246, to establish hiring goals for women and racial minorities when their representation in the University workforce is less than their representation in the local or national labor pool. Setting
goals does not mean establishing quotas. Hiring goals are based on several factors. In setting the goals, the University conducts a utilization analysis to determine its current employment of women and minorities and
an availability analysis to determine the number of qualified women and racial minorities available to meet the hiring goals. The University’s affirmative action program for disabled individuals, disabled veterans, and Vietnam era veterans is similar to the program for women and racial minorities, except that goals are not set." To see the goals that the University has set, and how close they are to reaching them, see the report appendices.

There is much less information available about Affirmative Action programs in admitting students. The goal of the law school's affirmative action programs is to "attract and admit law students from minority and other diverse backgrounds." "It is the sense of the faculty that the desired diversification of the law student body will not be achieved unless minority and other diversity applicants are admitted in more than minimal numbers, but the precise numbers of minority and other diversity applicants to be admitted will depend upon the comparative credentials of all applicants. No racial or ethnic quotas will be fixed which exclude any applicants from consideration for any places in an entering class." Other schools, including the Carlson School of Management, and the Graduate School, have similar policies.

I couldn't find any information on Affirmative Action on undergraduate admissions. The Office for Multiculural and Academic Affairs is responsible for the program, but only has very general information on their website. For example, they have information on what kind of affirmative action programs won't work here, but little information on what they actually do. From examining the undergraduate admissions forms, I discovered that race can be used as a factor in admission for freshman applicants (see the questions on race on page 13), but not for transfer students or non-degree seeking applicants.

This is all the relevant information I could find quickly, I'm going to keep looking for information, so check back for updates.

Posted by Eric at 11:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As promised quite some time ago, here are more reading lists with additional readings on some of the course topics. The first reading list ecompasses the literature on the welfare state , including the literature on family policies, gender and the welfare state, and political economy. The second reading list contains the sociological literature on gender inequality in employment, both in the United States and in other comparable countries. Note that these readings lists are very long (they are from the reading list for my preliminary examination), so look through it carefully before deciding what to read. Feel free to ask me for help in narrowing down the things that you should read.

Posted by Eric at 11:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The first reading "Understanding American Social Politics" by Weir is mainly concerned with U.S. social policies, including welfare, and how they relate on an international scale. Weir begins by pointing out that of all countries today, the U.S. probably has the best means to promote a sound social policy. Whereas the U.S. is above average in educational expenditures, it falls short of most countries in terms of health care and welfare. Yet, as Weir points out, U.S. social policies are still under attack from politicians.

After a brief introduction, Weir launches into the historical background behind social policies. Policies prior to the 1930s included support for public education and generous Civil War vet benefits, but the U.S. wasn't interested in the European influenced welfare systems. Then the Social Security Act of 1935 established a basic framework for social insurance and public assistance programs, including unemployment insurance, public assistance, and old-age insurance. Based off of this 1935 framework, the system of social security emerged and developed into a program that was reasonably generous to retired people.

Public contention regarding welfare aroused in the 1960s with the "War on Poverty" and the U.S. effort to create a "Great Society." In short, core welfare policies were much slower to develop in the U.S. than in Europe, with key components (national health care) never instituted.

Generally, U.S. social programs are far behind those of Western Europe, even though the U.S. has a healthy economy as well as the financial means to support a more encompassing program.

The reasoning behind the slow and limited development of U.S. social policies is a topic of debate. General deductions based on national values do not adequately account for discrepancies between U.S. and Western European social policies. Although an examination of political class struggles throughout the twentieth century American society explains much of our social system, it fails in many key time periods. Thus, for a full explanation of the landscape of U.S. social policies, one must examine the relation between class struggles as well as an institutional-political process perspective. This basically accounts for the changing landscape of political processes and how they impacted social policy.

Weir then steps through the history of the U.S., drawing parallels between the political structure of the time and resulting social policies. For instance, he points out that understanding southern social policies in the early twentieth century hinges on understanding the American political institution of the time. Racist southerners pushing for southern cotton agriculture did not hold the mainstream American political outlook, yet they had quite a bit of influence through various Congressional party systems.

Much like Weir described social policies based on multiple factors, Esping also indicates that social policies need to be analyzed using several variables.

Esping first describes that social policies are the result of a conglomeration of interactive forces. They include the influence held by working class politics as well as structural changes in U.S. history. For the most part, Esping describes a shift in U.S. political structure from a rural economy to a middle class society. Furthermore, Esping describes how historical policies shape and influence present social decisions. Institutionalization carries much weight in terms of political behavior, and as Esping describes, this is applicable to the social policy scene.

In contrast, Esping describes the nature of welfare backlashes. The author states that contrary to popular belief, tax revolts and other social contention is based on the class character of a welfare state. In this way, Esping claims that middle class welfare states (Scandinavia, Germany) form middle class influenced social programs. This type of approach, claims Esping, not only describes the historical context for social policies, but also future prospects.

Discussion Questions:

1. In order to fully understand American social policies throughout history, what does Weir insist on examining?

2. With a prosperous economy and financial means, how does the U.S. rank in social policies?

3. With this information regarding how social systems are developed, what is the best way to promote a more encompassing social system here in the U.S.?

Posted by Dan S at 12:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I have had a number of questions about how to cite articles in the Ore and/or Grusky books for the paper, so I thought I would email you and post this here to clarify. You should cite it like an article from a collected/edited work. So, for example, I wanted to cite the article by Katz in the Ore book on the Invention of Heterosexuality. I would do the following:

In-text citation: The growth of the consumer economy in the late Victorian era fostered a new sexual ethic that emphasized the pleasure principle for both men and women (Katz 2006).

References Section: Katz, Jonathan Ned. 2006. “The Invention of Heterosexuality� Pp. 151-163 in The Social Construction of Difference and Inequality: Race, Class, Gender, and Sexuality. 3rd ed., edited by Tracey E. Ore. Boston: McGraw Hill.

Hope this helps!

Posted by Eric at 11:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Affirmative Action

Affirmative action is always a hot topic for debate. The argument for AA is obvious, to help disadvantaged groups and diversify the classroom and workplace. However, many people oppose affirmative action, claiming reverse discrimination. There are even people aided by affirmative action that argue against it, suggesting it’s insulting to assume an advantage is needed for them to compete with the majority.

Harper and Reskin show that the debate on AA is a detailed one, having bans placed on AA only to have them overruled. Harper and Reskin mention the Gratz v. Bollinger case. This case dealt with AA and admission into law school. In the details of the case, it was noted that there were two ways that an individual could receive added points to admissions scores, being an athlete and being of a minority status.

Affirmative action seeks to remove discrimination from work and educational environments by favoring people of minority status. The goal is to strive for equal rights and opportunity. But is affirmative action supposed to be the long-term fix for issues of inequality? Focusing more on improving grade school and high school standards may be a better long term tactic for reducing inequality in higher education admission. In the early years of AA, government decision makers and judicial decisions viewed it as temporary (373). I think selection, in any circumstance, should be merit based.

Posted by Patrick Steidl at 7:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Newsweek features an article that dubs Will Smith “The $4 Billion Man,� for topping the Newsweek's annual Hollywood power list. According to the article ‘The Toms’-Tom Hanks and Tom Cruise- were the undisputed occupiers of this position, with some appearances from Mel Gibson. However, with Hanks aging and not having any new releases (except “The Di Vinci Code�), Cruise’s “TomCat� relationship being all over the tabloid, and Mel Gibson anti-Semitic controversy, Will Smith is now the most powerful man in Hollywood. He has had consecutive blockbusters, he appeals to international audiences, and plays characters that all races/nations can identity with. After reading this article, I told my friend about it. She was surprised that Will Smith topped the list, due to his race. My friend’s reaction is not surprising due to the fact that Hollywood is a white/male dominated industry. The article pointed out that Will Smith, other than Denzel Washington, is the only (current) black actor that has an international appeal.

The author goes on to say that “Since 2002, domestic box office has been essentially flat. Foreign markets, meanwhile, are expanding…Black actors have had a tough time appealing to foreign audiences, because the films they're often cast in are specific to African-American culture or history—they are films about African-Americans, as opposed to films that happen to have African-Americans in them.�

Hence, Will Smith seems to be the only ‘black actor’ in Hollywood whose films enjoy domestic and international success. Although the author seems to credit Smith’s blockbuster success and the missing-in-action of ‘The Toms’, one aspect that is as important as how much money he/she can generate is the actor’s race. In my opinion, black actors act in films targeting black audiences or films on black culture, not because those are the roles they want to play ALL the time, but because maybe those are the roles available for them, and have less competition from white actors. Few weeks ago, I told my friend that I was watching “The Best Man� on TV. And she said, “I like that movie, but I just don’t get why all those films [romantic movies in the late nineties-early 00‘s] had the SAME actors.� There are about three or four good romantic comedies that had at least three or four black actors, both male and female, in common (The Best Man, Brown Sugar, Love & Basketball, The Brothers, etc.). The only way these actors can get lead roles in films, especially in the romantic genre, is to act in all-black cast films about black culture. Hollywood has recently opened up to black actors as lead and important contributors to the films industry. In terms of awards, it was only in 2004 that Hale Berry became the first black actress to win best-actress Oscar. Was Hale Berry the first or the only black actress to give an outstanding lead performance in a film? No. Other black actresses have been performing well before Berry “opened the door� for them, however, their skin color played an important role in not being selected for lead roles as well as the prestigious awards. Besides, the Academy Awards as well as the other ‘important’ awards are pretty racist. One can observe Hollywood’s white/male domination by watching these awards. Non-white representation in Hollywood has been very limited, and one hopes that the industry changes, and provides wider representation of non-white populations in America.

Posted by Sadia at 9:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Affirmative Action
The article in the book, “The Effects of Affirmative Action on other Stakeholders�, discussed the unsubstantiated arguments against AA. Such as, the concern that Affirmative Action creates an environment of low productivity and reverse racism. However, the article also made clear that negative attitudes towards AA are very relevant. For example, in 1994 up to seventy to eighty percent of whites in America believed that AA discriminated against them. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission showed the reverse of this largely held public opinion. Of the 451,442 discrimination complaints made between 1987 and 1994, only 4 percent involved reverse discrimination.

Why then, I wonder is this fear by whites of reverse racism such a consistent one? Reskin brings up the media as a source of reinforcing negative attitudes about AA. I thought this was an interesting point, and wish she would have continued with it more. Reskin also shows a great deal of concern about these public attitudes towards Affirmative Action in both articles. It seems to me that one of the strongest messages in both of the readings; is that attitude has had a great impact on the extent and growth of Affirmative Action. There is much focus on the positive play that Affirmative Action has had in the work environment especially.
In the on-line article there is a lot more information about Affirmative Actions development and its process and practices. The Affirmative Action steps taken in primary and secondary education didn’t last. Why didn’t it? I personally think busing a chunk of kids from different neighborhoods based on race is a overly aggressive approach. It put the children in emotional and some cases physical danger. How do we stop living in separate neighborhoods and districts I wonder?
The section on protected groups was really interesting. Reskin/Harper discuss how the creation of protected groups has made the diversification of the workplace up to businesses personal race/sex/creed preferences. One example given in the reading is the Small Business Administration. The SBA had a minority set-aside program that included only some minority groups (Asian Indian and Indonesian) and not others (Afghans, Iranians, Jews, women, and disabled veterans). A question Harper and Reskin bring up the concern, “when all members of minority groups are equally eligible for affirmative action, the best-off among them will prevail-and…African Americans will [probably] lose out�(Malamud 2001, p. 321). I believe that the best qualified worker or student generally always gets chosen for the best job or school. The reason Affirmative Action came into play was to guarantee that minorities and women have absolute opportunity to work and be apart of institutions that once denied them altogether or still under represent them. Now who gets to have this guarantee is what is so fuzzy.
White or black, woman or man, there is no denying who was allowed to work and go to school for years before anti-discriminatory law came into effect in America. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 laid groundwork for a continued effort by minority groups and women to be included fully in our economy and education. Affirmative Action is intended to continue a reduction in inequality in school and in the workplace. I support the idea of Affirmative Action. I have always been interested in the topic of Affirmative Action, and was very impressed with the different points Barbara Reskin and Shannon Harper brought to the table. The article in the book reinforced my support of Affirmative Action. However, the online reading really made me question and think about AA in a new way.
Discussion Questions-
1. Where do the problems lie in the busing attempts at desegregating schools? Is the funding of minority schools an effective alternative to bridging the gap in inequalities in primary and secondary education?
2. How can the misinformed perceptions of Affirmative Action be corrected? Do you think a reestablishment of the goals and possible actions of Affirmative Action among legislatures, the courts, and Americans could make it a more clear and attainable goal? If so, what would your policies be? What do you think are Affirmative Action’s strong points?
3. Do you think media has something to do with the “reverse racism� fear among white males in the workplace? Do you believe a form of institutionalized racism may perpetuate this fear? Why or why not?
4. Harper and Reskin bring up the concern, “when all members of minority groups are equally eligible for affirmative action, the best-off among them will prevail-and…African Americans will [probably] lose out�(Malamud 2001, p. 321). Why do you think this is?
5. What is your take on protected groups? (Really, I am interested)
6. Is there a need for legal actions protecting minorities of all race, sex, and creed beyond the Civil Rights Act? What would the specifications of these laws be?

Posted by Ann S at 3:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In order to give you more time to work on your papers, there will be no class on Thursday, April 5th. We will be talking about the material on Affirmative Action on Tuesday, April 10th instead, so please read Thursday’s reading on affirmative action for next Tuesday, April 10th. I will discuss family policies later in the semester, so don’t do the readings for April 10th on family policy until I tell you too.

If you were scheduled to post a reading reaction for Thursday’s class, you know have until next Monday, April 9th at noon to post your response.

I will be holding extended office hours all this week to help you with your papers.

These office hours are:
Today – 9:30am to 2pm
Wednesday – 11am to 2:30pm
Thursday – 1:30pm to 4pm
Monday, April 9th – 9am – 11:30am

If you want to meet with me, please try and make these office hours. If you can’t, email me and we will work out another time to meet.

Posted by Eric at 1:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In the video A Girl Like Me, a group of African American girls discuss their experiences in living in this society where being black is seen as not desirable. It’s a short documentary but it’s very powerful how the girls talk about their daily experiences of being black women in the United States.

Color is more than skin deep for these young African American women, and they struggle to define themselves through out this video. This documentary was made in order to explore the standards of beauty that are imposed on today’s black girls. Moreover, it shows how these standards affect the self-esteem or images of these young ladies in their daily basis. As I was watching this documentary I find it very disturbing that something like this still exists, but it’s no surprise because there is no positive portrayal of beautiful black woman in our society. There might be some but it’s barely invisible especially when it comes to the media. In the film, most of the girls discuss about their hair and how it’s seen as not pretty, but they also show how being white is preferred, or seen as the more beautiful skin color or race. Some of these girls stated that people view them as loud, not smart, ghetto, lazy, etc just because they are black. Also, some of the standards that are imposed on them were that being black is fine, but it would be better and more beautiful if they are light skin/white. These girls state that they love themselves for who they are, except their skin color which is black.
Furthermore, this video demonstrates how dominant, “host� cultures can impose their racist standards up general populations and foster self-hatred among those “others� who do not possess the physical attributes of the host culture. If there ever was an indicator that we need to foster ancestral pride in our youth by teaching them about their own very rich and enviable cultural origins, this is it. I think the most telling shot was the look of enlightenment when the pre-school kids were asked to identify which doll looked like them. In the 1950’s Brown vs. Board of Education conducted a doll test. The doll test was conducted by Kenneth Clark who was testing the perception of race. The kids where presented with two dolls one black and one white. They were asked to pick whichever doll they find more beautiful or which ever doll they thought wasn’t bad. The test showed that 15 out of the 21 kids picked the white dolls as more attractive/not seen as bad. This kind of tests shows us that kids from an early age are constructed to think in a certain ways when it comes to race. And because of this some black kids might grow up thinking that being black is immoral or something. We live in a society where the subordinate groups are faced with race, discrimination, inequality and injustice everyday, but there isn’t anything that could be done about this issue because of the “colorblind� ideology that is built into our society today.
This video is very powerful and it makes you think of the slavery mentality that still exists today. I think that African American women need to remember that they came from a race of royalty, and they can still look beautiful either in dreads, natural, or relaxed hair. I believe that whether they are light skin or dark skin, they need to start building each other up instead of looking at each other with envious eyes and tearing each other down. I also feel that it is important to believe in the true identity that we have for ourselves and let NOBODY tell us different. Last but not least what seems the worst is that anyone in this country would look to their ancestor's country of origin for guidance, we all came from somewhere other than here, and where it was does not matter. This is the country we are in; this country is where we have to get along.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1091431409617440489

Posted by Amal Mohamud at 12:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)