It makes sense that it would be much easier to come out to gay parents than straight parents. Parents who are openly gay are clearly comfortable with their sexuality and have accepted themselves. Therefore, it would be much easier to accept someone else. Gay parents, being gay themselves it is obvious that they except homosexuality. However, homosexuality is a topic not talked about much, and therefore it is often unknown how straight people feel about it.
For example, I have always been a pretty accepting person. I guess I just figured everyone was like me and was accepting to homosexuality. As I have gotten older, conversations with friends and family have gotten more deep and serious. A couple years ago my dad and I got on the topic of gay marriage. I of course figured everyone around me agreed that gay people should have the same rights and be permitted to get married. However, as we got to talking I started to realize that my dad and I were not on the same page. When it comes to straight people I guess the only way to know how accepting someone is is to talk to them and gage their opinion.
If I were gay, I would be very scared and resistant to come out to my straight parents because it turns out my dad is not accepting of homosexuality. It really is a hit or miss on whether the general public is accepting. So you have to be cautious in order to protect yourself from hatred.
A lot of people who are gay say their straight parents are not the most supportive people at first but eventually come around. However, the initial lack of acceptance would be enough to deter me from wanting to come out to them. Other gay people have already found a way to accept themselves and would therefore be more accepting of others.
Acceptance of sexuality is a lot different than acceptance of race because your sexuality can be hidden. Sexuality is sometimes seen as a taboo topic in today’s society. People are very openly opposed to it, but others just kind of keep their opinions to themselves. Opinions are so spread across the board that it is hard to determine how you will be accepted. In my social psychology class we talked about how sexuality, and mainly homosexuality, is the trait that is most openly discriminated against today.
In addition, parents may have a certain religious affiliation that determines their opinion on homosexuality. Often times peoples’ religion is so deeply rooted that nothing will change their opinion because what they have learned through their religion governs all.
It is a shame that acceptance is not universal. I think the main reason that gay people have such a hard time coming out is because so many people are so openly against homosexuality. It is not unheard of for gay people to lose relationships with family and friends when they come out. So not coming out is their way of protecting themselves from rejection. If we were all more open and talked about sexuality more, it would be much easier for people to come out and it would much less often be viewed as a negative thing, and more often just viewed as a difference, not bad or good.

Today we discussed in class society’s general view of danger and how we fear very uncommon occurrences. We are so afraid that children at a young age will be kidnapped when in fact there are only 100 child abductions each year. I think society has a very skewed view of what the real dangers are in this world. Media plays a major role in our views of the dangers in the world. A majority of the shows on prime time television are crime shows such as CSI, CSI: Miami, Bones, NCIS, Blue Bloods, and so many more. We watch these shows and see outrageous crimes. In reality, the crimes portrayed are very infrequent and often overly dramatic. However, this is what we see so it conditions us to believe that that is how crimes occur.
In addition to watching crime shows on tv, the news also shows mainly only the dramatic and uncommon crimes that happen. Kidnapping and abduction may seem more prevalent because abductions are often very publicized in the media when they do happen. Nearly everyone in the United States knows Natalee Holloway and Elizabeth Smart because their abduction stories were so publicized and spent so much time in newspapers and in magazines. These stories get so much news coverage, which distorts our view of how prevalent these types of scenarios are. One of the reasons abduction is such a highly publicized crime is because the media is the best way to spread awareness to the public to help find the lost child. However, this also instills fear of abduction as a common occurrence, but statistics tells us that this is not the case.
As Sam mentioned in class, our fear of the world around us is almost irrational. I like to think the world and the people (for the most part) are typically good. I used to think that this was me being naive, however, after the most recent lecture I am starting to think that this thought is correct and that everyone else is just irrational.
I think one of the reasons we are so cautious and fearful of the world around us is because something has hit close to home for us. Because it is such a small world we probably all have some connection to one of these uncommon crimes. Statistically a lot of school shootings may not happen, but I was part of one. Not a lot of kidnappings happen but I have met someone whose friend’s cousin was abducted. Not a lot of murders happen but my cousin’s friend was murdered. Because it is such a small world, I feel as if we can all find a connection to at least one of these uncommon crimes. When we have a connection to something it becomes more engrained in us. So maybe people are irrational, but is caution really a problem? You’d be shooting yourself in the foot if a lack of caution caused one of these uncommon crimes. So maybe the caution is worth it.

As a protestant, I have always wondered why people feel the need to talk to other people to feel connected to God. In the Catholic religion, people are taught that the pope is their connection to God. The hierarchy of ‘closeness to God’ in my opinion is hypocritical of the Christian religion that I was taught as a Presbyterian. I was taught lessons like “everyone is equal,” but with a hierarchy like in the Catholic religion this does not appear true.
In my opinion, we are all equal and God loves us all the same. The pastor in my church is the one who teaches me about God and helps me stay strong in my faith. However, he is no better than I am, he is just a teacher and a mentor. I have a direct prayer line to God. In my religion there is no middle-man. I can talk to God wherever and whenever about whatever I want.
In the Catholic religion followers need to talk to a priest to get forgiveness. For me, I feel as if I can pray directly to God for forgiveness. What makes any of us better than anyone else? In something based purely off of faith, who’s to tell us what is right and wrong? We must follow our hearts and our own sense of faith to connect with God.
I would hate to dismiss other peoples’ religions, but I think that people tend to worry too much about specifics (do not eat meat on Fridays, homosexuality is wrong) instead of focusing on the most important thing: belief. All that is required for entrance in to Heaven in belief in God. You will not be denied entrance to Heaven even if you commit a crime, because he forgives all.
Faith to me should be done on an individual basis. There is no right way to do anything in life, which includes practicing religion. I do not need anyone how to tell me to practice religion correctly; I will do it on my own terms.
One of the things I really appreciate about my church is that the Pastor, after reading a passage from the Bible, he always says, “This is the word of God and listen for how it speaks to you.” For something written so long ago, how is any person supposed to know exactly how God intended his word to be interpreted? What makes the Pope so much more superior to be able to decide what God meant?
What it all comes down to is faith. I have faith in how I practice my religion. I have faith in how my Pastor teaches us. And I have faith in my own ability to communicate with God. Maybe Catholics have faith in the Pope to decide what is best in God’s eyes, but I do not share this aspect of faith.

When people say something racist about a race other than our own sometimes we tend to internalize the hatred being dealt out. Why is this? Well to be honest I’m not really sure. I am personally offended when someone says the word ‘retard’ even though I do not have a cognitive disability. I guess it all comes down to empathy. We feel for other people. We (or at least I do) have a tendency to want everyone to be happy, so when someone else feels down I feel down.
It makes me uncomfortable and uneasy when I know other people are being patronized. While watching the video in class that made fun of Asians I admit that I laughed. However, had I been sitting next to an Asian during class I would have felt uncomfortable for them and would have found it more offensive. After the video, when we talked in class about how it was offensive I started getting a bit uncomfortable and feeling almost guilty about having laughed at the video. When I started to realize that the video was offensive, I no longer laughed about it.
Sometimes we are so conditioned to what is funny, that we do not even realize what is offensive. I know I also tend to base how I react to things after how the people around me are reacting. If everyone around me is laughing, I will laugh harder. However, if the people around me are not laughing because something is offensive I will likely not laugh and I will feel the same way about the video.
As I learned in my social psychology class, we tend to look to the people around us for how to react. When we watched the video about the Asians I did not laugh out loud at first but when the people around me started laughing out loud I followed their lead and laughed along with them. And when people started acting offended after the movie, I internalized their pain. So, I know the answer for me in regards to this question is that I play off the people around me. If I know someone is offended, or I think they should feel offended, I will. However, if others see it as funny I will too.
One student in class said the video was funny because the students were not completely comprehending English and did not know what was going on. Well I thought the video was funny too, but when he said it like that I realized that it should not have been funny because it was cruel and ignorant. When he stated this reason it finally become more evident why we were laughing. Thinking about it, I know the video is ignorant. However, when we just watch something we tend to not analyze it or think about why it is funny, and therefore we tend to overlook ignorance. Is this a sign that we are racist? Do we do this on purpose? Or is it complete oblivion by us? I would like to think the best of society and think it is just oblivion, but psychology make tell us differently.

In preschool and elementary school I was always taught to look at everyone the same. We are all humans, no one is better than anyone else. The one thing we did do throughout preschool and elementary school however was to learn about and celebrate each other’s cultures. When a Jewish holiday would come around a student’s parent would come in an make us latkas and teach us how to play driedel. My one friend from Africa’s mom would come in and teach us about their culture by bringing in bright printed fabrics, food, and stories to tell us. We were taught at a young age to appreciate and partially understand these different cultures. So in my mind, this taught us to be more accepting and understanding of people from different backgrounds. Outside of that, however, we were always taught that we were not all that different. I may celebrate Christmas and he may celebrate Hanukah, but other than that we are really not all that different.
It is important to teach young kids to be accepting. If we fail to show, teach, and embrace cultural differences, however, kids will never know anything different than their own culture. Once a child reaches a certain age with this narrow mindset, it is kind of instilled in them that how they do things is ‘normal’ and how everyone else does things is weird. But early exposure helps us appreciate other cultures so we see them as fun, unique and entertaining instead of weird and threatening.
I distinctly remember in elementary school when the winter holidays would approach the lessons became more religious. For going through a public school system, this sounds odd. However, this is the reason that I know about other religions. I know what I celebrate, but I also know what my peers celebrate over their winter breaks. We would learn about Hanukkah, Christianity, and Kwanza. The discussions were not deeply rooted in religion, but more based on how these holidays are celebrated. In a way, we got to take part in the other religions of our peers. We would learn how to play driedel and then get to participate in a game and win gelt. We learned, and to some extent experienced their religions.
Throughout life I have always been taught, never judge something until you have really delved into it. Elementary school was a chance for me to take part in these other religions and cultures and share a common experience with my classmates. It didn’t matter what we practiced at home, because at school we could all play driedel together.
I think this was very important in my upbringing, and I will look to do things like this with my kids. People are a lot less likely to have a negative view of something if they have experienced it for themselves. It is important to emphasize that we are all the same, but if you fail to include the differences we will be shocked later in life when we realize them for ourselves.

Let me start by telling you where my opinions of war, and the Iraqi war in particular started out before coming to SOC 119. I have always thought war was bad. We should avoid it at all costs. Lives are valuable things and should not be handled so carelessly. I have always thought that America is too concerned with other countries and the goings on in them instead of focusing on our selves and staying out of other situations. This I still believe. When we invaded Iraq I was naïve and up until today thought the complete reason we invaded Iraq was because of 9/11. I have always thought that we should not attack someone unless our freedom or safety is at stake. When we were attacked on 9/11 I thought we were justified in attacking back because they were threatening our safety. Now in 2012, I have thought the wars have been drawn out and need to end. In a war like this there is no “winner.” We are putting our own American lives at risk by being over there, who knows if we will be attacked again.
Today’s class on the war was eye opening. I had no idea that the major reason we were over in Iraq was for oil. I said earlier that I always thought America was too preoccupied with other countries and not enough with our own. I guess that is wrong in some respects because the war really was a selfish act to get oil for America. I believe we talked about the conflicts in Libya and Syria and it was concluded that we decided to “help” Libya but not Syria because Libya had something we could use, oil. This is selfish and brutal and downright sneaky. I am 100% opposed to the war in Iraq.
On a side note, one classmate said via twitter that she did not support our troops and what they were doing. This is wrong! I do not support the government’s decisions. The troops are purely carrying out the directions of their superiors.
I am taking a social psychology class this semester as well as Soc 119. We learn all about how social influence can determine behavior. I think the main reason the girl tweeted about not supporting our troops is because of the videos shown about United States troops being cruel and tortuous beings. Social psychology tells us that being given a role can influence how we act even if under normal circumstances they would not. Prisons (as seen in the Zimbardo prison experiment) have a unique lesson to teach us about social influence.
In addition this class period helped me see that our “enemies” are fighting for the same thing we are essentially. They are fighting to protect themselves and their families. The one question I had about today’s lecture is why is everything related to religion? There are Muslims in every country so why do we choose to identify our “enemies” as Muslims, as opposed to Iraqis or the name of some group?

Where do I want to go from here in Soc 119? I want to keep being amazed—that is my simple answer. Throughout this semester I have been blown away with the information that Sam Richards has presented to us. He brings up so many interesting points. I never realized that Asian Americans are classified so differently from other minority groups here in the United States. I never realized that being white played such a major role in getting a job, buying a home, or even just getting a call back from a submitted application. I never realized how subconscious white supremacy is. I never even realized how minorities view themselves and how their mindset about their race can affect their academic performance. This has truly been an eye opening class for me. So going forward, I am looking for Sam Richards to continue opening my eyes to the importance and impact of race.
I am an upper middle class white female from the suburbs. About 90% of my high school was white. From a very young age I was taught to be politically correct and to be blind to race. I do not know if it is because I have never been affected or given a priority because of my race, or if it because I have just been blind to the way my white skin has helped me. In this class I have felt that Sam Richards has called being politically correct ignorant. I think the way to change the mindset of the younger generations is to start with political correctness and eventually it will just become natural for future generations.
I think I want to hear more from minorities, opposed to hear from a white man about minorities. In class today someone asked how black people feel about white people using the n-word. It is interesting to hear their personal views on how they regard their own race. I guess because I am white and in the majority I never think about my race, but it seems as if people of color constantly think about their race—how it influences and affects them in their daily lives.
Ultimately, from the last half of this semester I am looking for more of the same. I am looking to see how race plays a larger role in our lives than we even realize. I am looking to see how white perception of race differs from minority perception of race. One aspect of race I would like to learn more about is how race plays a role in different societies. One of the girls in my section discussion is from Africa and it is so interesting to here the different perception of race in her country. How are perceptions of race different in other countries? And how does race play a role in these other societies? Riddle me this Sam Richards!

Just like the guy asking the question, I thought SES, parents income, and where you grow up were the biggest factors to determine things such as intelligence. However, we learned that even when all of these factors are accounted for there are still differences between races. Why is that? I think this has a lot to do with stigmas surrounding each race. While the thought process in this situation is subconscious, it still goes on. Asians are thought of to be brilliant, whites a little below them, and then far down on intelligence are blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans. This tends to be the standard mindset among people.
Sam said that people when they identify their race on an exam it will play a role in determining how well they do on the exam. For example when Asians identify their race they will do better, but when blacks and Hispanics identify their race they tend to worse. If people really did not see color I think all races would be on the same playing field. When it comes to Asians I think there is a cultural factor of hard work that pays off for them in addition to the intelligence stigma associated with their race.
When it comes to other races, however, I think stigma plays a major role in performance. If a black child was raised in a white household and was treated the same as their white children I think that child would probably do just as well academically as the white children. I do not think there are any differences in a white person’s brain from a black person’s brain that make them more intelligent. It is the environment they were raised in (despite SES). Stigmatizing races on intelligence makes those stigmas true, kind of like self-fulfilling prophecy.
If we truly were blind to color differences—in generations to come—then we would see more of a balance of intelligence between races. Because of things like SES and family income we have created these stigmas. Based off of these stigmas self-fulfilling prophecies have taken affect. In a world without these stigmas, which would take generations to overcome, blacks and whites would have the same intelligence levels on academic tests.
I think culture may also have an affect on academic performance (based off the stigmas). It is part of Asian culture to work really hard and study and put academics first. It is part of white culture to “remain superior.” The Hispanics and blacks I have been around—of the same socioeconomic status as me—do not emphasize academics in their homes as much. This is obviously not true in all cases, but this is what I have noticed from my experience.
Differences in things like academics are not solely based off of skin color, but also based off of the culture within the home. This is obviously a generalization because not all households fit into this. Clearly race plays a role in academic performance, but so does the culture common to that race.

When you think of sports you can see many separations of race—mainly at higher levels. As Sam mentioned blacks tend to dominate basketball, and whites tend to dominate hockey. Hispanics tend to be seen in soccer and in baseball. Why is this? I think a lot of this has to do with either culture and/or socioeconomic status.
Despite a rise in black status, many blacks still tend to live in the city where there are no large open spaces and therefore recreation areas are small asphalt courts. Many of the basketball players in the NBA were raised in inner city. So instead of going to a playground, or a large open field to hang out and exercise, they tend to gravitate toward basketball courts. The whites in these areas tend to as well, but these areas are more dense with blacks.
Whites, who have a higher average socioeconomic status, tend to live more in the suburbs or the country where there are more open spaces, accounting for their involvement in sports like soccer and baseball. In addition, sports like lacrosse, ice hockey, golf, and tennis, are also all dominated by whites. These sports are typically only played by people who have a lot of money, due to cost of equipment and facilities. Therefore, white people tend to be more involved in these sports.
Many of the above generalizations I made were more defined and widespread decades ago. Since then, things have changed somewhat. Blacks are not as condensed in the inner city, and the suburbs are becoming more diverse. In addition, blacks are moving up on the SES scale. However, I think the past tends to stick with us so many white people see baseball as a “white” sport, and black people see basketball as a “black” sport. So, when they are younger and deciding what sports they want to become involved in, they pick the one that they racially fit into—at least according to what they see on tv in professional sports. I have even heard blacks be made fun of by other blacks for playing golf because it was a “white” sport.
Hispanics tend to be seen in soccer and in baseball. In Mexico, baseball and soccer are very popular. So I think Hispanic involvement in these sports tends to be more culturally based. Most professional baseball players who are Hispanic are actually straight from Mexico.
Football to me is a tricky sport when thinking about race. Typically the quarterbacks are white and the rest of the team is black. Some people may attribute the intelligence of white people to be why they tend to be quarterbacks. And in addition, they may refer to the stereotype of blacks being aggressive as to why they play the other positions in football. I do not know that I agree with these stereotypes because I try really hard not to make assumptions about race. Honestly, I cannot give a fair guess as to why the NFL seems to have this racial disparity.
Sports have a very obvious racial disparity in them, but the question is why? I think SES, culture, and history have a lot to do with this. As a final observation, I would like to point out that football is dominated by black athletes, but I have always seen it as a sport of mainly white viewers…interesting.

In Tuesday’s class Sam was talking about how white people shy away from the topic of race. He even demonstrated being at a table full of people of different races. When the idea of race comes up, the white people sit back and let the others lead the conversation. I do think this is true, that white people do tend to shy away from the topic of race. Because of history and whites oppressing other races, when white people talk about race it is often construed as racist.
In the past, I think whites shyed away from the topic of race because they felt superior, but now a days I think many white people shy away from the topic of race because we are in the majority. To us, our race is not something we think about because we are typically surrounded by people of our own race, and our race is never questioned. However, people of color are constantly surrounded by white people and they have been discriminated against because of their skin color. To them, race is a big deal because it sets them apart.
The best way for me to think about this is make a comparison. By no means am I saying that people of color have a disability (this is just the only example that I could come up with). If you bring people with physical disabilities and people without disabilities into a room to talk about conditions, the people without disabilities do not have much to contribute to the conversation because how they are is the majority, what is common Bringing it back to a discussion on race; if you put colored people and white people in a room and tell them to talk about race, the white people feel as if they have little to contribute to the conversation because their race is the majority, and what is common. They do not feel different from the majority of society because they share the common experience of being on the “white team.”
There tends to be no clear consensus among people of color about how they would like to be addressed or viewed in regards to color. Some people don’t see color, some people are proud to be colored and therefore see reaction to their skin color as a compliment, and some people feel as if being viewed by their color is an insult. With a lack of consensus among people of color, I find that it is always safer just to stay out of these types of conversations. That way I do not risk insulting anyone even if my comment had no racist intention. As discussed in class, white people are often viewed as racist if they bring up the idea of race so it is much safer to just discuss other topics.
In my eyes a person’s race is not important; it is all about who they are on the inside. So to me, discussing race with someone (outside the contexts of this class) is almost irrelevant. Silence is not ignorance, it’s respect.