Soc. 3251W Race, Class, and Gender

I just wanted to let you know that we finally finished grading and I posted the grades today (May 15th), so you should be able to see them on Onestop within the next 24 hours. If you have any questions or concerns about your grade, don’t hesitate to email me.

Also, your final papers and final tests will be available for you to pick up in 909 Social Sciences Building during normal office hours (8am to 4:30pm, Monday through Friday). As we announced in class, we didn’t comment a lot on the papers or exams, so if you have any questions about your grade on anything, again, don’t hesitate to contact me.

Finally, I wanted to say that I really enjoyed this semester. You were a great class and I really appreciated the careful thought and hard work you put into this class. Good luck in all you do in the future!

Posted by Eric at 3:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

For more than eight decades, the Walt Disney Company has been paramount in the field of family entertainment. Disney is a forerunner in childhood culture and presents itself as a company rooted in innocence and magic. However Disney is a corporate mogul owning media giants such as ABC, ESPN, ABC Radio and the Disney Empire itself.

Disney movies I realized do not provide an accurate representation of race. If a character is from a race other than white, they are reinforcing cultural stereotypes in their portrayal. Race is underrepresented in Disney movies which than provides children with a false sense of reality. This under representation could cause children confusion and they may have a difficult time deciding which characters to identify with. Furthermore, Disney is been able to hide behind the innocence of family stories. Children begin to associate real life situations and people with things that they see on the movies. Some of the examples of race in Disney movies include the Pocahontas, Lion king, Aladdin, Dumbo, Lady and the Tramp, and The Little Mermaid. In Pocahontas Native Americans are portrayed as brutal savages, and the good characters are mostly white. In the lion king, the hyenas are portrayed as very unintelligent beings, and they have African American voices. In the Little Mermaid, dark characters versus the light characters, all “bad� characters are dark while all “good� characters are seen to be white. This type of movies than further teaches these children from a young age that it’s somehow better to be white than black. Finally, I believe that these stereotypes shape children’s views and can carry through their adulthood. Disney movies are very popular and almost every child in America watches it. Overall, from noticing little things around me I am now more aware of them than I was before, and I believe this has to do with taking this class.

Posted by Amal Mohamud at 2:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

Please note that all reactions/response/media journals have now been graded. Any additional entries will not be graded or count towards your final grade.

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

I Stumbled acorss a CNN article focusing on Asian-americain life and the still existing stereotypes. I think this article is really interesting because it actually sheds light on a lot of the problems we talked about in class, and seemed to give information with an unbiased sense. This article I think is kind of a positive thing, because it seems to bring these issues into focus, reminding people that being American is not only for people that are white, without also being negative towards them.
One thing I liked especially was noting that you can't simply say one is Asian and have that encompass all cultures, languages, and people. The term Asian-american seems like such an old un-updated word, that still floats around carrying all of it's stereotypes, such as not being able to speak enlglish very well or to be good and successfull only in math or science. The acticle also mentions 'Apu' from "The Simpsons" as the old Asian-american stereotype, and how our society is finally starting to move away from that.
I think that this relates to our class topics because of all of the inequalities we talked about considering race. Especially now, I'm very undecided which direction society should strive to head for. Whether it's important for society as a whole to move towards more terms for people of different areas and cultures, or if we as a whole need to move away from labels completely. It seems that by eliminating labels we may be throwing away important pieces of culture, but by creating more distinct labels it could simply increase stereotypes, assumptions and inequalities among us. I generally feel that in our specific society, we would be better of without labels in all aspects, because labels in America generally only lead to further discrimination. What do you think?

Posted by Chelsea B at 6:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Lately a lot of press has been spent on the idea of the "loner" in society. After last months shooting at Virginia Tech, a lot of people have been speculating on what makes somebody "become a loner", as well as what can be done to create an air of inclusiveness in which people can be open and honest, and not be afraid of being bullied or otherwise excluded.

There is a significant minority of the population that doesn't have a lot of the social abilities that the mainstream populace has. Autistics, specifically "high-functioning" autistics, have a tendency to feel withdrawn from society, not necessarily because of a lack of social development, but because of (possible) physical conditions which prevent them from understanding social culture and norms. Many report several people not wanting to "fit in" arguing for their own ability to stay excluded, because this is how society makes sense for them.

Is it possible that we could be forcing a minority into assimilation by trying to create an "inclusive" society? Aspies for Freedom (http://www.aspiesforfreedom.com/) seems to argue this point at times.

Posted by Ronny Cary at 3:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Jessica Stiffarm
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/23/turner.prom/index.html

This article is form Ashburn, Georgia
This article was about a prom for the first time ever was going to be a mixed white/black prom. All the other previous years the proms wer held seperate one for blacks, one of whites. Alot of parents disapproved of this and didnt let their kids go, and some kids did not agree either. But the town deciced it was time for a change. Although they had a mixed prom they had a white prom a week before. What is that really showing?? That the white race is more important than the black race? I think that a change should ahve happened along time ago. I think this is a great example of how racism still exsists in our society. What do you think about this article? IS this fair? From taking this course we have learned that to some degree there is a white/black divide but is this just pushing things to far?? I think it is only teaching younger generations the white/black divide. What do you think?

This article I found really alarmijng that this kind of thing still happen in America.

Posted by Jessica Stiffarm at 2:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Jessica Stiffarm at 2:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

http://www.askmen.com/money/career/16_career.html

This article posted on askmen.com brought up many of the interesting issues we talked about in class regarding gender biases against women in the work place. I was especially intrigued by the chart on the second page of the article which outlined many of the different behaviors men and women exhibit in the workplace. Of the eight characteristics listed, all of them show the favorable attributes women display compared to men. It is obviously a generalization, but I can relate to all of the items and have seen them in everyday interactions with men and women. This article was written by a man, and his insightful commentary is impressive. He states that while women have made great strides in achieving some steps toward gender equality in the workplace, many men write these successes off to women using their attractive looks or flirting skills to achieve what they want.

As we learned in class, this may be a valid point, but only to a minimal extent. It was shown in studies that women were more likely to receive better scores in class based on attractive looks. Some women may use this to their advantage, but doesn't that leave men to blame for treating women differently based on physical appearance? Also, once a women is in an upper level position, she will have to use her skills to maintain that position. More women are graduating from colleges now than men are, so the education gap between the sexes is decreasing. Even with this closing gap, some jobs will always be seen as men's work, such as police officer, farmer, and garbage man. This is based on surveys given to men and women. It doesn't mean women aren't capable of doing these jobs, just that they have a stigma about them that decreases the likely hood women will do those jobs.

Posted by Dave J at 1:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Buhendwa Nathalie

Media Journal : Sex Change

On April 25th, 2007.USA channel showed an episode of sex change. In our class we saw how Sexuality is Socially Constructed, in a sense that people sexual orientation is imposed and med-up. This case support and contradict this believe. The case was of two identical twins, they were both boys. One of them got a very bad sirconcision that they had to remove the entire male organ. Well, one specialist convinced the parent that if they remove every thing from the boy as far as the male organ is concern and make him a new female sex; the boy will be no different then other girls in the neighborhood. The Doctor argument was that sexual identity is made up by society and that if the boy is raise a girls he will be nothing else than a girl. So they went on with the sex operation, hormone therapy the works. The journey for the young boy was not easy he as a little girl acted as a boy, he got often sick and was handful for the nannies most of them quit. One of the skim was to never tell the now girl that he was ever a boy so they change birth certificate at the hospital and every thing, no one except the parent and the sex Doctor new about this. Unfortunately at fourteen, the girl started loving girls and making out with them the parent panicked and increased the amount of therapy which involved making the twins kissing each other. I know it is gross but it does not end there. The girl was raped, on the scene, there was a male seaman of a twin, and the detectives assumed it was the male twin, but it was the girl who was raped, not the boy. How do you emplane this? The whole story unveiled for both the detective and the twins. The twins arrange to kill the doctor and even leave saliva on the scene but the detective can not tell who did it.
On one hand the case of gender construction is very accurate as we studied it in class, this case shows that the boy in most of the time behaved like a girl, had breasts and spook like a girl. She did feminine chores and every thing that women do. The case of sexuality as constructed by the society is proved to be wrong because the boy steel producing male seamen and prefers having sex with women when he was raised to love boys. It seams to me that in this case, her body spook to her, that there are some stuff that no one can control, some stuff are just
biological not imposed by society .

Posted by Nathalie Buhendwa at 1:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A month or so ago, Virginia Tech went through a very devastating experience that affected the whole nation. In the wake of the massacre, Channel 5 news (KSTP) did an interview with a Sociology professor at the University of Minnesota that focused on the killer in the massacre, a male student. The reporter asked many questions regarding the gender of the killer. Majority of serial killers, mass murderers, etc. have been males. There is always an exception to the rule but why do men kill more then women? In society, we place a huge importance on making sure men are manly. As little boys, they are given GI- Joes, cars, trains, weapons, whereas women are given dolls, Barbies, dresses, make-up. We tell boys that they have to suck up whatever they have wrong with them and fight their own battles. They are taught to be tough and that they should not cry. Boys eventually grow up to be men and as they grow up, they typically turn into these harden people that do not like to show emotion and who take care of themselves like they were told many years before. With this harden attitude, men create this idea that if trouble comes around, they need to take care of it themselves. Men also believe that they have to be powerful in every aspect of what they do: relationships, teamwork, work, etc. This idea of power sometimes over takes some men in society and they end up becoming a murderer, mass murderer, serial killer.

This interview relates to the course because we talked about how social construction affects society. We discussed how men and women differ throughout society and within this realm, men and women do differ. I discussed how boys and girls are treated when they grow up which is a social construction that society places on every girl and boy born.

Posted by Brandi at 10:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

I read a story from a science website saying you can now test the gender of a fetus after six weeks. It is causing problems with anti-abortionists. I think it is a useful tool but I also think that it can be misused. This is relevant to our class since it is about gender and how some people have a preference for one gender or the other and now you can find out early on and possibly abort the baby if it is not the gender you wanted.

Posted by Nicole at 10:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

For my media journal, I read a New York Times article about a very diversified sorority from DePauw University that suddenly discriminated against some of its minority members. What happened is that some of the girls from this sorority were suddenly asked to leave the house and live elsewhere, some were asked to leave the sorority for good, and when it was time to meet the new freshman recruits, only certain girls were allowed to meet the potential recruits. The problem is that, consistently, the girls who felt the negative impact of these actions were those girls who were not white. Additionally, several of them were overweight, not real popular, and overall not the typical pretty sorority girls.

This has raised a lot of controversy on the DePauw campus because it was so blatantly obvious that only the pretty skinny white girls were allowed to stay in the sorority. This clearly comes across as a racially biased issue. However, some are beginning to wonder if it is more of a gender issue- what the perfect female should look like- as opposed to what does the perfect race look like. It is hard to say as there is no way to read the minds of the girls who did this.
One thing that is both painful sad and yet so real is that whether the disgraced girls were discriminated by their race or just general look, there is an issue of physical characteristics and the need to conform. This is an upsetting issue that girls encounter nearly every day of their lives. This is created by the gender inqualities in America. Men have the upper hand in America and they determine the way women perceive life. The fact that a girl would be dismissed for her appearance shows how deep the need to look good is rooted.
This is perhaps the largest gender issue present in America. It is the reason for eating disorders, painful self-consciousness, and just the overall insecurity girls have. As a girl I feel swamped by this every day and it really wears a person down. I would like to think of myself as independent and not in need of a man's approval, but being surrounded by other girls who DO care so much and will clearly go to any extent to ensure that they gain such approval.....well in time, that can get to anyone.
It is sad because you would never see a fraternity cutting members who weren't physically attractive. That would be absurd to hear about. And yet, it really wasn't so surprising to read of a sorority that cut girls for their looks. It seems typical in fact- almost expected- almost okay. The thing is I don't know any guy that consciously makes girls feel this way, but we do. I don't know how to solve this issue though. It is so tied into our culture and backgrounds. From the time you watch your mom taking time to dress up for a night out with your dad or with friends, it starts to become engrained that looks matter. I know I am beginning to get off topic, but this article really got me thinking about just how little power women have in America- we have no ups on anyone except for other women. And how do we get that? By straightening our hair, wearing heels, applying blush, by being prettier. No wonder girls aren't taken seriously- we would rather sell out our friends because they are ugly and might ruin our chances with a guy rather than see their personality for what it is and enjoy that.
The link to this article is: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/25/education/25sorority.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5088&en=586cb157d02771f3&ex=1330059600&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Posted by Brit at 4:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

For my media journal, I read a New York Times article about a very diversified sorority from DePauw University that suddenly discriminated against some of its minority members. What happened is that some of the girls from this sorority were suddenly asked to leave the house and live elsewhere, some were asked to leave the sorority for good, and when it was time to meet the new freshman recruits, only certain girls were allowed to meet the potential recruits. The problem is that, consistently, the girls who felt the negative impact of these actions were those girls who were not white. Additionally, several of them were overweight, not real popular, and overall not the typical pretty sorority girls.

This has raised a lot of controversy on the DePauw campus because it was so blatantly obvious that only the pretty skinny white girls were allowed to stay in the sorority. This clearly comes across as a racially biased issue. However, some are beginning to wonder if it is more of a gender issue- what the perfect female should look like- as opposed to what does the perfect race look like. It is hard to say as there is no way to read the minds of the girls who did this.
One thing that is both painful sad and yet so real is that whether the disgraced girls were discriminated by their race or just general look, there is an issue of physical characteristics and the need to conform. This is an upsetting issue that girls encounter nearly every day of their lives. This is created by the gender inqualities in America. Men have the upper hand in America and they determine the way women perceive life. The fact that a girl would be dismissed for her appearance shows how deep the need to look good is rooted.
This is perhaps the largest gender issue present in America. It is the reason for eating disorders, painful self-consciousness, and just the overall insecurity girls have. As a girl I feel swamped by this every day and it really wears a person down. I would like to think of myself as independent and not in need of a man's approval, but being surrounded by other girls who DO care so much and will clearly go to any extent to ensure that they gain such approval.....well in time, that can get to anyone.
It is sad because you would never see a fraternity cutting members who weren't physically attractive. That would be absurd to hear about. And yet, it really wasn't so surprising to read of a sorority that cut girls for their looks. It seems typical in fact- almost expected- almost okay. The thing is I don't know any guy that consciously makes girls feel this way, but we do. I don't know how to solve this issue though. It is so tied into our culture and backgrounds. From the time you watch your mom taking time to dress up for a night out with your dad or with friends, it starts to become engrained that looks matter. I know I am beginning to get off topic, but this article really got me thinking about just how little power women have in America- we have no ups on anyone except for other women. And how do we get that? By straightening our hair, wearing heels, applying blush, by being prettier. No wonder girls aren't taken seriously- we would rather sell out our friends because they are ugly and might ruin our chances with a guy rather than see their personality for what it is and enjoy that.
The link to this article is: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/25/education/25sorority.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5088&en=586cb157d02771f3&ex=1330059600&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Posted by Brit at 4:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

A recent article in the The New York Times talked about a "model middle school" in New York. This middle school is Briarcliff. It has earned the title of a model middle school because it had gone beyond the norms of just teaching subject to "focusing on how adolescents think and develop" and to help them cope with the stressful middle school years.
This is all well and good for them, but they spend an average of 24,738 dollars per student. The school can even afford to buy multiple copies of book for each student so they can leave one copy at home.
While this is a great advantage for these students (91 percent of the student population are white) it leads me to think about the stuggling inner city poor schools that can not afford books at all. This is a prime example of where wealth is not being evenly distriputed to those that need it the most, and it is a very sad fact.
In addition, while this school is able to expand past the bare minimum of teaching children their lessons, they develop lessons and skills that focus on critical thinking, moral values and organizational skills. Children from inner city and poor schools do not recieve these opportunities, so how and why should they be expected to compete with children who have been raised with all the "luxuries" of a extremely rich school?

Posted by Steph at 2:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I stumbled upon this blog on the star tribune's website and it relates to some discussions we have had about families. The link is http://www.startribune.com/blogs/cribsheet/ and the article in discussion is called "Couch Potater Tots." The article is written by a woman who doesn't know if she should let her children watch much TV. They are under two but there is much pressure and advertising by television programs that they can make your kids smarter. Series' like Baby Einstein or Baby Mozart are out there and are telling her to have her kids watch them so they become smarter. She had watched Sesame Street as a kid and she implies but never expicitly says that that is proven as a benefit towards children's education.

This relates to the conversation we had in class about families and the parents changing the developments of their children. The mother here is struck with the decision of how can I make my kid as smart as the other kids out there and it is a tough spot. With parents having such an impact on the development of her child could be altered by whether she buys her kid fancy movies and what-not. Furthermore, this strikes a deeper chord in relation to whether or not people can afford these intellingence-advancing devices. Assuming that Baby Einstein does in fact make kids smarter, what about the parents without the money and time to make that happen. Is this yet another area where the poor will struggle more to educate their children at as sophisticated a level as the rich? If intelligence is purchased, is smart kids to some degree something you need money to have? If yes, the rich will keep getting richer and so on unless changes are made.

Posted by Jon at 2:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Tomorrow there will be a vote in the town of Farmer's Branch which is a smalll suburb of Dallas. Usually in the past this has been the type of issued addressed by the government, but it is the first time it will be subject to a vote from the general population. Only about 35 years ago this was a town that was 100% white, but currently is approximately 40% minority, most of these residents are o hispanic descent coming from coutries like Mexico and Guatemala. The new legislation that is being proposed would prohibit landlords from catering to tenants that are illegial immigrants, and levy fines of $500 per day for doing so. Lnadlords are strongly opposed because of business as well as them having to do a federal job, just as banks are upset about having to comply with anti gambling laws, doing something that is out of their jurisdiction. Many say that this proposal has increased public hate and bigotry, as it is not so stigmatized since this vote is about to happen.

Posted by Paul Cogliano at 11:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I saw a disturbing topic on the news yesterday night. One of the higher-ups of the St. Paul police (I believe he was the chief) was blaming several unsolved murders and violent crimes on...hip-hop. His rationale was that hip-hop promotes "anti-snitching"--not telling if you know something about a crime. He claimed hip-hop portrayed the police as the enemy. Although you may be thanked by the police, you will have to deal with the "real law," the law of the streets and you'll probably get hurt/killed for telling.

My issue with this is that the story itself was constructed showing images of black male after black male being searched by the cops or handcuffed but I'm fairly confident that they didn't mention race once as an issue or topic, they successfully avoided it by just saying "hip-hop" and showing pictures of black men. It was a successful attempt at making race similtaneously an issue and a non-issue.

Just like we've discovered a million times before with Marilyn Manson, and countless other genres, songs and artists, it is not the music that makes people violent, silent, etc. it is society. I could easily say there are countless raps about being good citizens, standing up for what is right, etc, but I won't. It isn't the issue. I will say rap is a cultural expression, agency against a dominant power (which hasn't always been fair and just as the cops claim they are being) and creative-expression. The news clip made it seem like hip-hop was part of a glorified gangster way of life and completely neglected many of it's positive attributes. It is just interesting to me how the story manipulated the truth. It didn't mention that the communities could feel silenced not because of rap music, but because both communities in question are poor, inner-city and almost all people of color. With those statistics it is often dangerous to involve authorities, who stayed uninvolved until the violence reached outside the community. Maybe the cops need to re-examine the way they "deal with" the inner-city rather than blame hip-hop. The story really reiterated the fact that there are so many lingering problems between when it comes to justice, race and class, so many ways to manipulate the story and avoid the reality of the situation.

Posted by Shirani Jayasuriya at 10:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I found this article just a few minutes ago and was shocked at how well this source would have supported my final paper. The article posted on MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18603331/), discusses the controversy surrounding a law banning housing for illegal immigrants in Texas. For the first time in Farmers Branch, Texas, a popular vote among residents will determine whether the ordinance will be enacted or whether it will be dismissed. The article discusses how approximately 35 years ago, the city was 100% Caucasian and now it is almost 40% Hispanic. There arises a huge debate among apartment owners and landlords and the government on how to deal with the situation on immigration. These oppositions proved to be a very interesting debate!

I really liked this article in that it showed both sides of the story. I am torn on the illegal immigration debate in that, I don’t agree with illegal immigration but I feel that the means of obtaining LEGAL citizenship is extremely difficult and costly for potential immigrants. I fear that the threat of illegal immigration fuels American stereotypes of Hispanic immigrants and causes increasing discrimination against these individuals. However, I found it very promising that the number of individuals voting for/against this law has risen drastically meaning people feel very strongly about this issue. I hope, in this case, that individuals are voting against residential segregation as we have learned that promoting residential segregation only institutionalizes discrimination among minority individuals. I would hope that taking action in matters like these will truly increase equality and understanding in our nation in the future.

Posted by ~maggie~ at 10:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

After our lecture on health care systems last month, I became very interested in this topic mainly because I am going into a health related profession. A couple of weeks ago I came across this article on CBSnews.com titled “Poll: The Politics of Health Care�. Just the title was enough to catch my attention, so I read the article and found it was much related to our lecture.

The main point of this article is that the majority of Americans favor universal health care systems. CBS News and New York Times did a poll of Americans to see their actual thoughts on this topic. Some of the results were as follows:

-Providing health insurance to everyone is thought by two-thirds of Americans to be more important than keeping the costs of health care down.
-9 out of 10 people think the current U.S. health care system needs some type of fundamental change.
-36% believe that the current U.S. health care system needs to be completely redesigned.
-59% of Americans are very dissatisfied with the overall cost of health care in the U.S.
-The majority of Americans think the health care system can be improved by the government because they are capable of doing a much better job than private insurance companies.
-64% believe that the government needs to guarantee health insurance for everyone and only 31% believe the government needs to keep health care costs down.

The article also stated that in February 2007, health care was tied with jobs and the economy for the #2 issue the U.S. is facing. The #1 issue was the war in Iraq. The 2008 presidential campaign is sure to focus much attention on this very critical issue of the U.S. health care system.

This article was very interesting to read after our lecture because it was very reassuring to see that the majority of Americans feel the same way the majority of our class felt regarding the U.S. health care system. After learning about the different types of health care systems that exist around the world, I do believe that there is a better way of doing things here in the U.S. I am not sure what system I would choose if I had the option (a public assistance system or National Health Service system); however, I believe that both have many more benefits than our current system.

It is also very good to see that this critical issue is being given the attention it deserves. I think it may take some type to reformat our health care system, but I would like to think that in the future we may have one of the better systems, not one of the worst.

Posted by Heather Wencel at 9:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The movie Little Miss Sunshine displays the dysfunction of a white middle-class family in New Mexico. At first, the family is depicted without any characteristics of togetherness and without any common bonds among its members. But when the daughter of the family, Olive, gets entered into the Little Miss Sunshine pageant, the entire family begins a journey to California which would lead them to become as close as ever. Throughout the film, there are several instances in which issues of sexuality, class, and gender are confronted and dealt with by the family.
At the beginning of the movie, Sheryl, the mother, is seen driving to pick up her brother from a mental hospital. Frank was admitted when he attempted to kill himself after discovering that his male partner was no longer interested in him. This discussion arises at the dinner table later, when Olive asks Frank what was wrong with his wrists. Frank tells the story of how his partner didn’t love him anymore, and Olive’s only response was that Frank was silly for loving another man. Even though Olive is a child, she still demonstrates anti-homosexual beliefs, which she probably obtained through her parents.
During the movie, Richard, the father, is portrayed as a failed father who is jobless and trying desperately to promote his self-help book and plan. Ironically, Richard himself represents the working class struggle to uncover opportunity in the workplace. Technically, Richard does not have a career himself, but is a motivational speaker for an audience that almost never shows up. His unpopularity with his self-help concepts leaves the family high and dry when he fails to get his book published.
The issue of gender is also tackled in Little Miss Sunshine when Olive arrives at the pageant. At the hotel where the pageant is being held, there are numerous girls of all ages, wearing make-up and expensive dresses that characterize them as young ladies. Olive, on the other hand, has a plain outfit, no make-up, and large rimmed glasses. The other girls, and even their mothers, gawk at Olive’s less than outstanding appearance. In the film, Olive and her mother show that feminine beauty is not dependent upon sparkling gowns, perfect smiles, and mounds of make-up, but it is dependent upon personality and character.

Posted by Ashley S at 5:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I read an interesting article posted earlier today regarding gender in the international sense of politics. In the French presidential race, an attractive socialist feminist named Segolene Royal was defeated. The article, titled "Is Gender a Real Disqualifier?" indicates that some Republicans are using this case as evidence that Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign is doomed.

The author, Marianne Means argues that this type of argument is completely bogus. She argues that the only thing that Royal and Clinton share is their gender. As Means describes, Clinton displays the "man-like" qualities that make her a viable candidate here in the U.S. She has "a command of the issues and a steady policy hand that demonstrates she is tough enough to run the country." The remaining portion of the article bashes Bush and spews propaganda about the Iraqi war.

Although the second half of the article is fairly useless and completely unrelated, the first half of the article has much to say. I found it interesting that gender considerations in politics are stretched as far as they are. Consider the argument here: a female French candidate faced a losing campaign, and therefore the female candidate running here in the U.S. won't see success either. The simple fact that this debate is in the media is ridiculous. This type of logic only draws attention to a non-existent issue, that of gender in politics. In such a race, the voting public shouldn't consider a candidate's gender as an issue. A candidate's platform, personal stature, and other USEFUL elements seem to be left in the dust as we listen to our media explain to us how race or gender fit into the picture.

With so much attention put on race or sex, it is no wonder that our society has a hard time seeing past these qualities in other aspects of life. No matter where you fit into the political spectrum, I suggest that you look beyond such problems, see past the media's reports of race and gender, and focus on the issues facing our nation today.

Race, class, gender and sexuality are an important consideration. We need to be continually pushing to research, study and provide equal access to opportunity for all. The problem with these considerations occurs when they overwhelm our consideration of things such as political candidates. We lose focus on the end goal, that of choosing the most qualified candidate for some of our most important national considerations.

http://www.timesdaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070511/NEWS/705110314/-1/COMMUNITIES
Dan Schoppe

Posted by Dan S at 5:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

On April 30, 2007 there was an article that ran in the Star Tribune newspaper titled, "Minnesota companies have learned how to recruit minority workers. Now the problem is KEEPING THEM." This article discusses how it is such a challenge for corporate Minnesota, who spends so much on getting African-AMerican transplants, to hold on to them once they are here. Although it is a struggle with all minorities, it is even more prominent among blacks because recruiters say that there is a much smaller number of them. Only six percent made up the population in the metropolitan Twin Cities in 2003. The article goes on to discuss how when a Twin Cities company hires a diversity candidate, that they work hard to introduce the individual to to other diverisity employees and show them what Minnesota has to offer in areas such as churches, ethnic markets, and entertainment. Companies have found that a diverse candidate who does not feel attached and welcomed to the Twin Cities is most likely to leave in less than two years. A black women that was interviewed expressed that it was many little things that all add up and make the quality of life unsatisfying. Minnesota would enjoy for these minorities to stay, after all they are putting work into getting them here. Minnesota has devised many strategies for retaining minority workers, such as sponsers to help guide a worker with worries and uncertainties. I think this article was very informing. During the course of the semester, we have discussed how minorities need more options and I feel that Minnesota is doing a great job at trying to provide these opportunities.

Posted by Rita at 1:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Today reading thru the Pioneer Press I ran across an article that reminded me of the in class activity we had in class a few weeks ago, when we shared what we wanted to change in order to make society a better and more equal place. In the group I was in we said that what we wanted to do was to tax rich people higher and also business owners and that way we would have more money to distribute to people in need. The article I found was about this same issue. A proposal to tax rich people was passed by the Minnesota house today and sent to Gov. Tim Pawlenty. The expectative is that Pawlenty will veto it because he does not agree with increasing taxes; he argues that the state does not need additional tax revenue. This article made me reflect on what we had learned in class and especially what Mr. Tranby told us the last day of class about the inequality and unequal opportunities in our system. We have many people in Minnesota in shelter homes, people depending on Welfare and at the same time we have very wealthy people who are not expected to contribute to society with their taxes.

Posted by Leilani Rodriguez at 1:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In the last few days, there has been a lot of controversy around Reverend Al Sharpton and his comments suggesting that Mormons do not believe in God. His reference was towards GOP candidate Mitt Romney and he said that a Mormon running for office will be defeated by those who really believe in God. Sharpton was responding to a previous comment from Christopher Hitchens who said that Mormons promote racism because they have kept blacks out of the church.

Whether or not these statements are true is somewhat beside the point. I think the main point is that the debate these two men were having was judging Mitt Romney not as an individual person but as a member of the Mormon faith. I think it is ridiculous that two men of the status of Rev. Al Sharpton and Christopher Hitches cannot bring themselves to discuss the viewpoint of an individual man and feel the need to judge him by the group he is a member of.

Here is an article about it if anyone is interested:
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,660219285,00.html

Posted by Joseph Wax at 3:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Media Journal

As the 2008 election is coming soon, candidates for president are fighting and trying to cover as much ground as they can. By this I mean they are trying to win the votes and be the next president.
However this time around media is concentrate around different causes than usually. As I remember media was more concerned about the policies that the new candidate promises to bring to the table. However, this time around they seem to be more concerned about who is running (sex, race) for that seat in the white house.
For example the other day I was watching some show and they were talking about how Hillary Clinton and Obama are refreshing news to so predictable-white-male territory. But, as they were talking they were in a way discriminating against both Obama and Clinton by saying that they just can’t win they are not that strong candidates, one person even added that “American is not ready for ‘those’ leaders�.
I think that media should give equal chance to all candidates and not secretly ignore the possibility that we might indeed have a black or woman as a president of the United States.
By: Fahrudin Turnadzic

Posted by Fahrudin at 9:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I would like to start off, by saying this is a really interesting video and I suggest everyone watch it. The video uses sounds, and shapes to discuss race. There is a white man who positioned in a circle, and a black man who can only walk a straight line. To me this represents, the more choices that white Americans have. This was a creative way of showing this difference, and I understood what the representation was right away. Next, there was a sound that was added to the video. The black man and the white man both heard the sound, but they heard it differently. The white man heard a harmonic tune, while the black man heard a horrible loud noise. This represents the differences that each race faces when the same obstacle/problems are presented. At the end of the film, the white man leaves his area and travels to the controls. The black man is still in walking his straight line. Overall, I really enjoyed how this video represented race in our society. I think it could have done a better job at introducing more obstacles that we as people are faced with, but this had a lasting impact on me.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=eFLqt46OETE

Posted by Belal Muwahid at 9:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

There is Carlos Mencia, Dave Chappelle, Ellen Degeneres, Eddie Lizzard, Margaret Cho – and now, “The Axis of Evil� comedians. The “Axis of Evil� is a new comedy tour of four men of Middle Eastern decent who made a name for themselves using George Bush’s description of terrorists. They claim that they are breaking stereotypes with comedy because “you can’t hate someone when you are laughing them.� The group makes light of airport security, terrorist stereotypes, and traits specific to a variety of different cultures within the Middle East. It is their way of saying “hey, I know what you think of me and I will laugh at the stereotypes with you.� This style of comedy is not unlike the tactics used by the minority comedians listed above.
I am very unsure what to think of this. From one angle I see it as a sign that the country has gotten over the extreme phobia and does not hate Middle Easterners any more than other minorities. I watched video clips from some of their shows, and yes, I laughed; however it was because I thought it shed light on how ridiculous the stereotypes applied to them were (which is what I believe they were going for). Unfortunately, I think that some other viewer may laugh because they actually believe that crap. From the other angle, I find the tour disgusting. Why is it that there has to be a Hispanic, Black, Lesbian, Transgender, Asian, and Arab comedian to assure the media that these groups of people aren’t scary? It is like making minorities dance on a stage because their freakdum is a surefire source of humor for everyone else. Some of the audience will laugh because they can relate and everyone else will laugh because they think they are better than the minority. I think there are positives and negatives to this type of comedy, I’m just wondering how other people feel about it.

Posted by Christa Nicols at 2:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

So, I was watching the Jon Stewart show and they were making fun of the democratic presidential candidates. Jon Stewart was saying how candidates are still playing nice and they need to start dissin’ each other. Then, he said that Clinton should tell Obama that he smoked so much that the only black thing about him is his lungs.
I really did not think it was funny because I have been hearing a lot about how Obama is not “black enough� because his dad is from Kenya, his mom is white and he grew up in Hawaii. And this is not just about Obama or just the black race. This happens in almost every race, ethnicity, religion and country. And the worst part is that the media does a good job of maintaining stereotypes. How can we break stereotypes, (which I believe helps to integrate people of different background in the US) when we have people telling others that they are not black enough or white enough. What does a person have to do to prove themselves and do they have to prove themselves.
If Obama says he is a black man, then he is that, regardless of his parents’ race, nationality, upbringing, how they talk and dress. Lets not limit people to fit our standards of being part of a certain group

Posted by Wadzanai Msimbe at 4:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

There was an article posted in the New York Times online today addressing the rising cost of healthcare and the 46 million uninsured Americans. Large companies who are helping pay employees bills plan on Monday to lobby Congress for a market-based approach for providing universal health-care coverage. They also said individuals must take more preventative steps to avoid expensive health crises down the road as Congress looks for ways to expand coverage to the 46 million uninsured Americans. Addressing health issues before they become major is an important step in fighting the rising cost of health care. I wonder how we can do this though, with out telling people to take their vitamins and shop organic at he local co-op? I realize that's the white, college educated soul speaking in me, but it seems the most sensible plan of action- provide our body with the proper nourishment and then your visit to the doctor is less likely. Maybe we should look at forcing these multi-million dollar health care companies to pitch in funds for the fight against poverty.

Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, has proposed a bill to provide universal coverage by giving individuals access to various private health plans available in their states.

``We're going to make a big push ... to fix health-care in this session of Congress,'' Wyden said. ``We don't think the country can afford to sit around and wait for another presidential election to fix health care.'' Health care has gained widespread attention from the 2008 presidential candidates but they mostly focus on covering nine million uninsured children. Several studies have found fault with the current U.S. system -- a free-for-all in which employers provide most health care, government programs provide much of the rest and an estimated 46 million Americans are left with no health insurance.

I'm glad to see Health Care in the scope of the media, and I think it's an issue we definitely have to take to the politicians and the future leader of this country. It's something that needs to be on our minds during this next election especially. We're students, and I don't know about you all, but I'm not sure how I'm going to have health Care after graduation next year........

Posted by Grant Heuke at 6:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

The movie blood diamond is a movie about the harsh reality of the diamonds that are imported into the US all the time. In the movie, families are destroyed and innocent people are exploited for the retrieval of diamonds. Throughout the movie the truth about the diamond business and becomes apparent. Also, the US government is basically giving the okay for the whole corrupt procedure. The process goes like this, there are rebels who control and capture locals and make them work to retrieve diamonds. Then there is a middle man who comes to collect the diamonds, he then brings them to the US in great numbers. Then the US government puts them in confinement and does not tell the public about the surpluss so they can charge massive amounts for diamonds because people think that they are rare. Thus, the US controls the economy through scandalous and unjust opperations.
This movie relates directly to class topics in many ways. First of all it addresses racial inequalities around the world. Also, directly supporting income inequalities around the world. Those people collecting the diamnds do not make anything in comparison with the big bussinesses in the US controlling the markets and economy.

How should we go about trying to fix corrupt companies and imports like this from continuing to make a profit? I can only think of one way, and that would be a nationwide refusal to buy diamonds.

Posted by Anna at 4:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

In response to America's Colorblindness, I think that we as a people are moving in the right direction toward equality. However, I only believe that this is occuring because the cultures are mixing and forming a new blended less distict culture. The United States is becoming less racist because they have to. What I mean by that statement is that people are becoming more accepting of other cultures and races because they have to accept the doctor who saved their life, or their sons wife, etc...Therefore, think the US is making giant strides forward in terms of acceptance of other races but acceptance is not what we need as a unified country we need equality.

Posted by Anna at 4:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Sorry this is so close to the final for those taking it on Monday, but here's a list of questions I prepared similar to the one's I posted for the midterm. This is how I found easiest to prepare for the tests, hopefully someone else can benefit. They mostly focus on items for the short answer questions, but I think knowing the details of the concepts helps in the essay questions. The questions marked (*) are from the Sample Final Questions handed out in lecture, look for the answers there.
Happy studying!

Family, Background and Education

Name two ways in which the family is important for reproducing gender roles and ideologies.*

Describe the “separate spheres� ideology and how it has varied culturally and over time.

How is status attainment affected by race?

Explain how race and class interact within the education system and how this directly impacts status attainment.

Work and the Economy

Describe what is meant by the “dual economy�. How did the labor-capital accord operate differently in each sector?

Name at least two of the strategies corporations have used to maintain profits in the face of failed competition.*

According to Rubin, what are the main differences between the “old� industrial economy and the “new� service economy?*

Describe the labor markets of the old economy.

Describe the labor markets of the new economy.

What are internal labor markets?*

Describe each of the factors influencing employment outcomes for inner-city people of color.

What are the various programs companies have instated to reduce inequality? Which have proven to be most effective?

Compare and contrast individualistic and structural explanations for gender inequality in employment outcomes. Name at least two explanations of each type (2 individualistic and 2 structuralist explanations). Which is most convincing? Why?*

Differentiate between Affirmative Action policies and Anti-Discrimination laws.

Identify 3 criticisms of Affirmative Action policy and their counter arguments.

Social Inequality in Comparative Perspective: State Policies and Institutions

Evaluate Epsing-Andersen’s three social policy regimes based on the three criteria that he provides.

Describe the gender employment and political outcomes of each of the social policy regimes.

What impacts does family policy have on employment? What are these factors dependent upon?

What type of health care system does the United States have?*

Compare and contrast the US health care system to the two other types of systems in the industrialized world. Provide specific benefits and costs of each system.

What challenges are all these systems facing that will shape the future of health care services?

Describe the three basic types of social assistance programs.

Compare and contrast welfare ideology and provisions before and after the 1970’s Welfare Crisis.

Which of the following social institutions is the most important for explaining racial inequality in the United States: the family, education, work and the economy, or the state and public policy? Support your answer with at least 3 examples from the lectures or reading.*

The Future of Social Inequality

Name four examples of how American society has made progress in combating systems of oppression.

Posted by Amy D at 3:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Without a doubt, prom is a symbolic right of passage for many American teenagers. It represents weeks of planning, shopping, photos all for an evening of glamor and make-believe luxury. I'm sure any who attended their high school prom have one or two vivid memories of the night--something to share with your children as they too someday approach prom. Now imagine being able to share memories of attending your high school's first racially integrated prom. Sound like something from post-Civil Rights Movement Era? Guess again.
The rural community of Ashburn, Georgia celebrated it's first ever racially-integrated prom this past April. For many years, the community has privately funded two separate proms, one for White students and the other for Black students. Their senior class is composed of roughly equal numbers of White and Black students. Since the public school district does not fund the event, the blatant segregation is legally allowable despite resistance from many students. Parents and community members have allowed the separate proms to continue in order to avoid complications of interracial relationships.
Having ended class reflecting on the future, I think this story and the senior class of Turner County High School model how important the actions of our generation will be. Traditions only exist as long as people are willing to participate. Hats off to this group from Georgia for acknowledging that segregation is a tradition our generation will not continue.

Posted by Amy D at 2:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

The article I found was from the New York Times. It is titled, "Sexual Orientation Gets 'Hate Crime' Protection." The House of Representatives voted today to include 'hate crime' protection for people who are victimized for their sexuality. This includes crimes spurred by a victim's gender, sexual orientation or gender identity, as well as their race, religion, color or national origin. This same type of legislation is moving through the senate but may get a veto from President Bush because it is "unnecessary and constitutionally questionable." Civil Rights groups have urged for some type of protection for people who are attacked because of their sexuality for a long time.
I think this topic relates to our class because we talked a lot about discrimination against people of other races, classes and genders. If people become aware that there is a problem in our society we might be more inclined to fix it. I know in our class we talked more about discrimination and inequality between races but I think it is just as interesting to research the discrimination against people of other sexual orientations. This is something that a person has very little control over, just like race.

Here is a link to the article :http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/03/washington/03cnd-hate.html?hp

Posted by Emily at 3:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Once again I am writing about the Tyra Show! She does such a good job at addressing race issues that I feel I should pass it on. http://tyrashow.warnerbros.com/show_recaps/show_recap_wed86.htmlThe other day I was watching an episode where a practicing Nazi came on to illustrate his beliefs. He also stated he was going to pass his beliefs on to his children, meaning our future generation. He proceeded to explain how he felt that all Jewish people should be dead and that all minorities should go back to their own country. After this comment the audience was allowed to ask questions and one woman asked the question that was burning in my mind. She asked him where he thought he was from, because his descendants were not originally from America unless they were Native Americans. Conviently, he talked around the question.

That is the one biggest comment that people can make to get under my skin. "Go back to you own country". That shows how ignorant some people can be. It just disgusts me to be exposed to people like this. It was amazing for me to watch this man tell Tyra that she would be a good representative to Africa when she went back there. Tyra could only laugh at how ridiculous this man honestly was. It was just shameful for this man to honestly believe this is how the world should be run. He also made a comment how he would fight to continue white supremacy so to be ready. It sent chills down my spine to be so close to so much hatred. What is our future generation coming to with people like this living in the land of freedom?

Posted by Vanessa Pacheco at 10:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

So, I know this is a little off-topic for this class, but I'm hopping mad about it and figured it warranted a media journal. It's sort of a class issue, if you consider that lower socioeconomic classes are often forced into the military as one of only a few realistic ways to advance to a higher social class in our society... so anyway, here's a repost from my personal blog:

So, now the US military is requiring all members of the armed services, government contractors, and even military family members to submit blog posts, e-mail, and any other posting of information in what would be considered a "public forum" to a military review before going live with it. Ignoring that stipulation carries serious consequences. That means that not only can my mom (who is an officer in the U.S. Air Force) not technically blog without submitting it for a content check first, but I can't either.

You know what? Screw you, Uncle Sam. Soldiers make up a very small portion of the population who are willing to go and fight on foreign soil because they believe in our country. You can argue that some people do it for money, and some people do it for necessity, but the truth is that anyone in the armed forces for any length of time is a die-hard patriot on some level, no matter how much they bitch about the government. I can understand being worried about leaks and whatnot, but this is ridiculous. Who's going to accidentally post classified information? Answer: no one. It's the same reason you don't go to a bar and "accidentally" start talking about classified information.

What this is really about is intimidating soldiers into silence and preventing them from expressing their viewpoints. Why? Because the picture isn't pretty. The government wants the population complacent. They don't want people to get uppity about the war. They want to keep it fairly low-profile, positive, optimistic, and happy. They want to show Joe Shmoe, happily eating burger after burger at the local McDonalds, that everything is fine and dandy overseas. "We're winning, Joe! Aren't you proud to be an American? Don't worry about the logistics... we'll take care of everything." Oh, except that our body armor sucks, our vehicles suck, we have no funding, we're digging an ever deepening hole, we're fighting a war of attrition with no objectives at this point, whose original intent has been so twisted and perverted by successful PR and spin that nobody even remembers or cares that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or that we went in looking for WMDs and somehow morphed it into a benevolent peace-keeping mission.

It makes people sad and confused when they see mangled bodies coming back from an unclear mission. It makes people angry when brave young soldiers don't get adequate supplies, armor, or resources to carry out their mission in the first place. When the soldiers themselves complain that they don't see the vision, don't understand the mission, and don't think that they're accomplishing anything in an increasingly dangerous and hostile environment, thousands of miles from their homes and the families that are being destroyed by multiple forced tours, it really upsets people. So the government doesn't like to let their soldiers talk. At least not where anyone can hear them.

So yeah. Screw you, Uncle Sam. I didn't sign anything, and I'm not going to stand idly by and let you revoke my constitutional rights to free speech on a whim simply because I have a family member in the military. I can't do much if you force her to be quiet, but I can damn well voice my own opinion about it. You can't keep me quiet. I'm not having my writing approved. I'm going to bitch about this as much as I want, and if you want to coerce me, lets go have a chat with the Supreme Court about the constitutionality of that.

I'm sick of seeing our soldiers silenced, abused, demonized, confused, weary, and wounded. I understand that soldiers might not always understand or like the mission and have to do it anyway, but don't force them to be silent about it under pretenses of security. If this is how we treat our bravest, strongest, most capable warriors, who is going to want that job? "Shut up and do your job" doesn't fly these days. We have a responsibility to the men and women who agree to give their lives protecting our country. We need to hear their voices, so we can help them accomplish their mission. We shouldn't be blinded and deafened to their opinions, whether positive or negative.

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/05/02/1352258.shtml

http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/05/army_bloggers

http://blog.wired.com/defense/files/army_reg_530_1_updated.pdf

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/05/new_army_rules_.html#comments

So anyway, sorry to sort of hijack the class blog, but I think it's important to get the word out about this.

Posted by Cam at 1:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The three reading assignments for today (May.1) deal with cultural opposition when it comes to constructing one’s own image. In the first article it talked about how Asian Americans are seen as exotic aliens who are different from others. Moreover, it showed how minorities are discriminated against in many different ways whether it is their race, class, gender, or ethnicity.

For instance, Asian American men have been seen as both hypersexual and asexual, while the women are seen as super-feminine and masculine. I was very surprised that the women were seen as masculine and not the man. And the article states that this type of racialization of Asian Americans womanhood or manhood underscores the interconnections of race, gender, and class. Therefore, it’s the contribution of these type of sorting of group differences that allows the dominant groups to rationalize their cultural, social, economic power in society. As a result, ideologies like these attack both the gender and identities of these minorities groups. In the second article it discusses how woman continue to be the vast majority of household caregivers, even if they are employed. There is also the income inequality when it comes to man employee and woman employees in the job sector. All of these articles basically discussed the inequality of minorities. There is always this gap when it comes to race, class, and gender and all of these create disparity in one way or the other. I believe that if society as a whole creates a world which emphasizes parity and equal opportunities for all than there wouldn’t be difference between groups regardless of power. If minorities are given the opportunity to grow I am sure they would succeed just like anyone else, so unless there is that equal opportunity available to all there would not be much change in our society today.

Discussion Questions:
1. How can a system which is built on discrimination towards minorities be transformed into a more of equality system?
2. What would it take for our society to stop being colorblind when it comes to the issues of race, gender, and class?

Posted by Amal Mohamud at 2:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBacks (0)

I recently went to the Race exhibit at the Science Museum of Minnesota. I was initially shocked upon entering because the exhibit immediately confronts the viewer with a history of white supremacy alongside a wide variety of personal descriptions of race. The definitions ranged from stating that race is one’s identity, to the simple characteristic of skin color, to a prescribed variation in society that humans would be better off without. Next to these verbal beliefs was a paragraph, which stated that race is a human invention that is only hundreds of years old, compared to humans thousands of years of history. I was, and still is, used to legitimatize differences among people.

In a small daily survey 41% of the participants voted that race should be eliminated from the US Census. Alongside that was a photo of people who wore shirts that showed how their race was altered in Census history. For example, one woman was a Negro in the 1790s, a black in the 1920, a mullato in the 1970s and a Hispanic in the 1990s. There was also an area that showed scientific evidence that race is not a biological epidemic, it is purely social.

While walking though this exhibit, my friend and I discussed if race could ever truly be eliminated. While, ideally, it would be best for humanity, an immediate end to race could severely hurt some people. The history of racial acts cannot be forgotten, and how those acts affected the human race is still seen today with the cultural, political, and economic, differences among people. Therefore, we concluded that an end to race would have to include assistance to some people in order to begin again with a clean slate and relative equality amongst all people.

Still, there may not be enough time for this to occur. I think that soon, relatively speaking, race will no longer exist because of the melting pot society throughout the world. There are people of all races and ethnicities being born in “foreign locations� everyday. For example, what is the race of a man with dark skin color whose father is Latin and Carribean and mother is black, but the man is born in China. Is he black because of skin tone or Asian because of where he was born? Or, if he moves to the Carribean, would his race change because of his fathers race? There is no clear explination for this complicated life. But this is not unique; in fact it is so common that I believe this mixed race society will soon overrun every country, especially the US.

Posted by Jennifer at 10:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

While I was browsing through google news, I came across this article about the difficulty which women face when they enter the political arena. We talked about this in class a few weeks ago, but this got me thinking about it again. Something which really caught my interest was this quote:

"Most of the male candidates running wouldn't be running if they were women. A woman John McCain's age would have a hard time, a woman with Barack Obama's experience would have a hard time."

I also find it interesting to consider what the ramifications of voting the first woman into the presidency might be. I can't help but feel like she's going to be the model that every female candidate after her will be measured against. We practically deify George Washington and his deeds have taken on an almost legendary quality. If the first female President does a poor job or is viewed negatively once in office, will that shut the door for another 50-100 years for other women? If she makes the right decisions would it lead to an influx of female candidates and a restructuring of the political landscape?

Intriguing thoughts.

Posted by Cam at 8:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)