When I signed up for Soc 119, I did not know how impacting this course would be. I took it solely because my friends had signed up and I still needed an elective. I never would have guessed how life-changing this semester would be. From day one, Sam challenged the belief system that I had held for my entire life. He challenged us to form our own opinions rather than conform to the beliefs of our parents or what the media says we should think. I came from a high school where fewer than 5% of the students were Hispanic or black. We had a decent number of Asians, but it was probably around 80% Caucasian. Because of this, many of my fellow classmates had similar life stories to mine. Not being around much diversity growing up definitely caused me to be ignorant towards many differences between minorities. I never really thought of myself as being racist, but Sam has definitely opened my eyes to the fact that many racist actions are subconscious. The example of the two men with identical applications applying to the same jobs struck this home for me. I doubt that many, if any at all, of the employers consciously made the decision to hire the white person over the colored man because of skin color, rather it has been so engrained in us that we judge people without even realizing it. After you start thinking about these subtle racist tendencies, I have become much more aware of race. Whether it be in movies, commercials, or other advertisements, I have started noticing how politically correct many companies are trying to appear. I think that it is important that we acknowledge the fact that inequalities exist in today’s society, but we must also be careful to not go too far in trying to prevent it. A great example is the Penn State sorority picture. I completely understand that those signs are racist and because they are associated with Penn State, they put us in a bad light, so I agree that there must be a punishment. However, it seems like no matter what you say nowadays, it is impossible to not offend someone. To an extent people are going to have to accept the fact that we live in a country where free speech is held sacred, and you have to just have thick enough skin to ignore the fact that ignorant people have, and always will exist. The number one thing I have learned from Soc 119 is racial awareness. I think that I have grown as a person because of this class and I am sure that the things that I have learned over the past semester will be able to be applied throughout the rest of my life.

I thought that the “Needy Penis” lecture brought up a lot of issues with today’s society. Although most of the lecture was spent talking about sex, it is apparent that these issues are not exclusive to sex, but are found in all aspects of today’s society. In almost every civilization throughout human history, men have been considered the dominant sex. This is true most likely because men are usually more physically powerful which meant that they were better suited for laborious duties. However in present day, there is a much higher emphasis on intellect. Other than sports, most high paying jobs are not physically intensive, but rather require keen intellect and knowledge instead. Because of this, ideally women should be regarded as equals today. However, Sam pointed out clearly that today’s society is definitely a male-dominating society. We focused on the “Male Gaze” and how Hollywood is more likely to show movies from a male’s point of view than a female’s. I think that this is especially true for movies targeted towards the youth. Almost all of the movies about college are focused around a male’s perspective of the events that occur. This difference in perspective is most easily seen in the pornography industry. Most porn is produced by men with straight men as their target audience. This means that they will cater their business to focus on what men want. However, eventually men start thinking that what is being shown in porn is the “correct” way to have sex. This obviously is not the truth because as Sam shared with us, only 25% of women say they can achieve an orgasm from penetration only. Generally this leads to men being selfish in that they put their needs above the needs of their partner. For sex that is satisfying for both partners, men will need to accept the fact that what they find most pleasurable may not be the most pleasurable thing for their partner.
Another topic which I thought was interesting from lecture was how girls choose to present themselves. Almost all girls dress to attract the male gaze, whether they do this subconsciously or not. I found the topic of head coverings very interesting because in their case, many of them cover themselves to deflect the male gaze rather than attract it. I also thought it was slightly ironic that some of the head coverings were decorated because it seems to be counterproductive for the exact reason they are wearing the covering in the first place. I do respect the women who choose to wear the covering to attract men based on their personality rather than their appearance. I also respect the men that are want to marry a women who does cover. I don’t know I could personally marry a girl who I’ve not seen.

The issue of immigration has divided our nation and created a lot of tension between government parties. Many people argue for harsher laws and tightened border patrols, while others think we should allow a more free access into America. I personally believe that we should reduce the amount of red tape that the government institutes and allow the process of immigration to be simpler and easier. People argue that they come up here and take jobs and opportunities from American citizens and rely on our government assistance to life here. I think there is definitely an element of truth to this when they first move here, but most of the jobs they take are lower paying labor jobs that many Americans find unfavorable. Like in the example Sam gave in class, the farming labor needs were not met and resulted in a mass spoiling of crops. This loss of millions of dollars could have been prevented with more reasonable laws. I think that one solution that could prove beneficial in preventing situations like this from occurring in the future is a plan that would allow temporary legal access to the United States. If we allow an allotted number of workers from Mexico to immigrate to the United States and have them provide the needed labor during harvest time, they can earn enough money to provide for their family back home. At the end of the harvest, we should try to send them back to their families in Mexico. I realize that there would be an issue with “losing” the immigrants and them living here without proper legal documents. I think that overall this could prove to be a successful solution for both the farmers and workers.
In addition to short term solutions such as the one above, I think that we should provide more green cards to workers looking to come into the United States. I realize that there is an issue with violence spilling over the border, but most of that is a result of gang violence. If we screened the individuals we allow to enter our country, or even check them for gang tattoos or prior crimes, then allowing more people would not significantly add to the violence or crime. I think there should be a push to stop the immigrants from living right near the border and try to have programs that would find them farm work in the bread basket states rather than having them try to find construction or labor jobs near the border where there is higher competition. This high competition prevents them from getting enough work to properly provide for their family, which sometimes leads them to commit crimes to provide. Finally, I think that if we ease our border control, Mexico should do likewise. We should work with our current NAFTA policies and try to improve them to allow for better relations with our neighbors.

I do not believe we will ever be able to eradicate latent prejudice. The unconscious part of our brain makes split-second judgment decisions based on past experiences. We cannot stop and think about why we chose to make that decision and what factors played into our judgment making process. This makes it all the more dangerous because we cannot analyze the situation and hope to learn from our prejudiced actions, because we never realized they were tainted by prejudice in the first place. In class Sam gave us an example of how latent prejudice is affecting the workplace, specifically the hiring process. He shared the results of a study in which two applicants who had identical resumes applied for the same jobs. The only difference between the applicants was their skin color. The study showed that the white applicant was significantly more likely to receive a call back than his colored counterpart. Then they added a criminal history, claiming that they served time in prison for a felony possession of cocaine, and repeated the process. The study revealed that the white man with the criminal history was still more likely to get a call back than the colored man without a criminal history. This statistic shocked me, because I would like to think that if I were deciding who to hire I would pick equally, but based on this study I am not sure if I would. I doubt that any of the people who chose the white applicant over the colored one was consciously doing so because of their difference in skin color, but did so because of certain conclusions that he or she may have made based on the ethnicities of the applicants. Society will always create stereotypes that people believe even though they, as Sam said, based on assumptions rather than facts.

Another thing from class that I found very interesting was when Sam displayed the statistics on how the judicial system is greatly affected by prejudice. A higher percentage of white people do illegal drugs than black people. If I remember correctly, the only group with a higher percentage of drug users than Caucasians is Native Americans. There are also a lot more white people in America than black people, so there are more white drug users than black drug users. Yet regardless of this, black people are more than twice as likely to be incarcerated for drug related crimes. This is partly because of prejudice in the police. Police are far more likely to pat down a colored person if they seem to be acting suspicious than they would be to search a white person. It also affects the court system. Judges are far more likely to be lenient with white offenders than with colored ones. This is probably a result of assumptions that they make based on their previous experiences rather than giving everyone an equal chance. I do not think that there is an easy fix to this solution, but I do feel as if our upcoming generations will continue to strive towards minimizing any prejudice still in existence.

I thought that the video that Sam showed us in class was very eye opening. They had a white teenager blatantly attempt to steal a bicycle that was chained to a sign. Most onlookers passed by without even bothering to stop and question the kid. Finally, someone asked whether or not the bike was his, to which he responded by saying something to the effect of “No, but it will be soon”. The person seemed confused by this answer, but then turned and continued on their way. When the black person started sawing at the chain, an angry crowd quickly formed and threatened to call the police. This experiment was set up to eliminate as many variables as possible, including clothing and how they responded to questions. I did notice that the black teenager was wearing a slightly baggier shirt and wore his hat in a “ghetto” fashion, but other than that the two were indistinguishable other than their skin color. One thing I did notice during the video was the ethnicity of the people passing through the park. Almost all of the witnesses were Caucasian, with only a few colored people. I think that this fact would have contributed to the bias shown toward the black teen. If it were in a more diverse setting, I think that the reactions shown by onlookers would have been more similar. However, regardless on the setting, I think that the white kid would get the benefit of the doubt and the black person would be looked upon with more distrust. This was even more apparent when the experimenters used an attractive white girl in her 20’s. People did not only allow her to continue to try to steal the bike, but one older white man actually helped her steal it. He justified his actions by claiming that he was trying to help a damsel in distress. I thought that this shed light on how much one’s appearance affects other people’s first impression about people. I would be interested to see if the responses would be different if the black kid was wearing a suit or nicer clothing rather than the baggy red shirt and backwards baseball hat. I think that people definitely would have been more trusting. I think that no matter what, people are always going to be judged by their appearance, whether it be the clothes one is wearing, hair styles or tattoos, or skin color, people associate certain appearances with experiences in their past or stories they have heard. For example if someone sees a mugshot of a black male in the newspaper with an article on a violent crime they committed, the next time someone sees someone who looks similar to that person, they will automatically associate them with crime. Oftentimes this is a completely subconscious judgment, and although you may not think of yourself as being racist, there is a part of yourself that passes judgment and makes conclusions about people you see. I think this subconscious discrimination will be the hardest and slowest thing to change because you cannot directly control it. The only way we will see improvement in the near future regarding discrimination is if people consciously think about their actions or words before they come to fruition and question the internal motives behind them.

I believe that affirmative action is necessary to a degree, but can also have negative implications if abused. We must recognize that racism still exists in our society, but government regulation is not going to solve this problem. Affirmative action is essentially punishing the youth for the wrongdoings of generations before us. I feel as if our generation is much more accepting of people’s diversity. For example, the Gay Rights movement has come a long way in recent years. Similarly, I feel as if younger people are much more willing to confront the topic of race rather than shy away from it like people have traditionally done in the past. I acknowledge the fact that racial bias is still and issue today, but having regulations in the future will only keep these problems alive. I am not suggesting we pretend that these do not exist, but sometimes affirmative action can create tension. Accepting or rejecting people from employment opportunities or acceptance into universities because of one’s race is being racist in and of itself. Having a quota for the number of people in certain demographics is just a way to categorize people and bring to light their differences in a negative way. I understand that it is trying to counterbalance the fact on average people of color do not have the opportunities that white people or Asians. Whether this is a result of the high school they attended was not as effective, or because their family life or financial situation was not as stable. I understand that this may be true for some situations, but when someone is looking at a resume, there is no way to tell the hardships that the person has gone through. Taking race into consideration only hinders allowing free will to be the leading factor in one’s success. I believe that a significant majority of students in high school are capable of excelling in their courses. The deciding factor ultimately comes down to the amount of drive the student has. I know some of my friends that barely had to do any work to succeed in high school, and others who had to study a lot and put forth much more effort to get the same grades. I think that in the long run, the people who have good work ethic and character from devoting themselves to their studies will be more successful than those who just got by purely because of their intellect. Being personable and working hard is the most important factor for making connections that make being successful in the business world significantly more likely. People skills are not dependent on one’s ethnic background. So although I do realize there is a need for more reform in today’s society, I do not think that government regulation is the correct way to go about achieving this change.

I think the fact that no one stood up and identified themselves as being rich was very interesting. I am guessing this is in part because most of the students in class are in their late teens or early 20’s, so classifying themselves as being rich means that they come from a wealthy family. If you asked people who are older than us, the response may have been different because they earned their wealth rather than being born into it. This lack of response may also have been due to the fact that people did not want to be known as “the rich kid”. If people were aware of this person’s financial status, they might be treated differently in the future by his or her fellow classmates. I know after hearing the one girl’s story about how she was working 30 hours a week to help pay for college, I felt someone lazy and even a little bit guilty myself knowing that my college tuition is being paid for by my family. If I were a multi-millionaire, I would have felt arrogant standing up after that and admitting that I have had everything handed to me for my whole life.
On the other hand, there are lots of rich people who do not hesitate to remind you that they have money. Our culture has turned money into the ultimate idol and makes us believe that all of our problems would be solved, or at least be easier to solve, if we only had more money. This has created a large group of people who base their success by the amount of money in their bank account. I think that this is not necessarily true for all wealthy people, but a seemingly increasing amount of Americans care more about their wealth than the people around them. This has been an issue ever since the dawn of civilization, and there are countless stories about greedy people throughout history, but I feel as if America has perfected the lust for money and material possessions. In a world where it is easy to only invest in things that give one instant gratification, money can prove to be a band-aide for much more deep and threatening problems. Hollywood is a perfect example of what living for money does. It is amazing to see how depressed people are who have everything that most Americans idolize, whether it be fame, money, cars, drugs, or relationships with people who are deemed “attractive” by society. Many people who have achieved and acquired all of these things have contemplated suicide. Once people finally have all of what they dreamed of, they realize that the enjoyment they bring is empty. Investing in relationships with people will always be a better use of your resources than investing yourself meaningless material possessions.

I think bringing up the topic of body hair on women was an excellent idea. Most western cultures strongly judge women who choose to not to shave their legs. Facial hair on women is even more taboo. The Sikh girl whose picture was posted on Reddit is one of the few people brave enough to stand up to the norms set by society. I commend her on making such a positive and bold statement in response to the criticism she received. Personally, I do not think that I would be able to respond in such a calm and understanding manor.
As horrible as it is that women are being forced to conform to society, I believe that it is completely natural. All animals are in competition to survive and reproduce. Similarly to how peacocks show off their brightly colored feathers, girls and guys both attempt to attract their mates by keeping their body in a form they find attractive. Many males work out in hopes that their muscles will make them appear more attractive, and likewise many females apply makeup and spend lots of time perfecting their hair to draw more attention. As superficial as this may seem, it is rooted deeply in our biological chemistry. In the technology age, society has a much more far reaching effect on people. Whether it is through TV ads or billboards, photoshoped pictures of models have been integrated into our everyday lives. We have grown accustomed to what we “should” look like or how it is appropriate to act. It has caused a decrease in individualism because most people readily accept what they have been brainwashed to believe without giving it much thought on their own. The Sikh girl is a prime example of someone who swam against the stream and chose to hold different beliefs than those held by a majority of Americans. As a result she was chastised and criticized. Despite this, her faith is strong enough to stand up for what she believes and I think that earned her a lot of respect (at least it did for me personally). I think if just a few more people would choose to follow suit and take stands for their beliefs, no matter how unaccepted they may be in the eyes of society, people would start to challenge the beliefs that they have held for their entire lives. It does not take many leaders to gain a large following. I think that in general, society is becoming more accepting of everyone, but there are definitely still groups that are gaining this acceptance at a much slower rate. Homosexuals have made a lot of progress in recent years, but as we saw from this example, much more progress is needed before people can actually choose to express themselves without fear of being judged.

I was surprised to hear such a provocative statement coming from an Advisor to the President of the United States. I understand that tensions were high following the attacks of September 11th, but issuing statements that isolate many Americans only creates more of a schism in a time that America needed to unite. After the tragedy of 9/11, many Americans were looking for a target onto which they could channel their anger and frustration. Muslims proved to be an easy scapegoat, and Franklin Graham unutilized this opportunity to gain public backing. Although I am a Christian, I firmly believe that the President should not have a spiritual advisor. This seems like a counterproductive position in a government that prides itself on having a separation of church and state. When religion becomes political, tension between countries will occur unnecessarily. America is supposed to be a country set up on the idea that one’s religion or spiritual beliefs should not be a cause for prejudice. Associating America as being a “Christian Nation” proves to be counterproductive when trying to relate to citizens of other countries.
Although this statement is hostile and instigates conflict, I do understand that Iran is an extremist nation. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated that Israel “must be whipped off the map” and denies the fact that the Holocaust ever occurred. I believe that he is an extremist leader who will never negotiate for peace, but I do not think that America should be the deciding factor in what happens in internal affairs of foreign countries. I think we should allow them to govern themselves as they best see fit and only respond with hostility if they attack Israel unwarrantedly. America was set up because the government was overbearing and intrusive. We are hypocrites if we think that we deserved our freedom from Britain but for some reason we have the right to determine the actions of countries that are completely independent. We should not impose our ideology on the citizens of Iran. If we ever want to improve relations and open the door to compromise, we must stop making narrow-minded and ill thought comments. Even if President Ahmadinejad continues to be obstinate and refuses to make compromises, we must still be sympathetic to the people of Iran.
I feel like a majority of Christians are accepting of Muslims, and vice versa, but there will always be extremists in both groups. These groups of extremists represent a very small portion of the population, but they also attract the most attention. News organizations thrive off of blowing small issues out of proportion until they seem to be at an epidemic. Once people start to think for themselves rather than being brainwashed by the media, they will start to realize how similar we are and begin to make progress in relations in both an interpersonal level and an international political scale.

I am aware that the United States military is using drones to eliminate targets in Pakistan. Prior to class I was unaware the amount of destruction we have been causing with them. I previously believed we used them very sparingly, but I learned upon further research that under the Obama administration we have ordered around 300 drone attacks in Pakistan alone. I do not believe there were 300 situations which required drone use in the past four years when we only found the need to use them about 10 times in Pakistan from 2004-2007. I know that drones are a way to ensure the safety of our troops, but in a war that is being fought more for monetary and political reasons rather than the safety of our country, there is no need to cause unnecessary casualties. These attacks only create more tension between the civilians of Pakistan and the United States. They see the destruction of their houses and witness family members dying because of our bombings. I cannot imagine how frightening it must be to live knowing that at any given moment, a missile could completely obliterate everything that you hold dear. At the same time, I am sure that our military does everything they can to minimize the number of civilian casualties during these strikes. Recently, there has been an uproar in America about an American Citizen dying in a drone strike. I think that this is hypocritical of our nation to be so upset about this death when we are killing innocent civilians in the Middle East. I do not believe that a human being’s geographical location should not determine their importance in the world. I think that we need to scale back on our missile strikes and attempt to eliminate high risk targets in a manner that would result in fewer civilian casualties. As we proved in our Osama Bin Laden assassination, we have highly trained soldiers who are capable of quickly analyzing risks and repercussions of engaging targets. Refraining from using large explosives will drastically reduce the amount of damage done and the number of casualties. Although there is always a risk associated with sending soldiers into combat, a majority of their injuries and deaths have been a result of improvised explosive devices. There number of soldiers injured by gunmen returning fire is much smaller. I am not saying that killing people with guns is any more moral than using explosives, only that it has a smaller chance of hurting innocent civilians. In order to improve relations with the civilians in the Middle East, we must take actions to show them that we do not regard their lives as acceptable collateral damage. Until this happens there will always be a level of animosity between them and the United States.