This seems like an interesting question to respond to because of the skit we saw in class today. Laurie did a clever thing- in the play that she wrote she based it on the opposite of what our culture teaches us to think it beautiful. In America, the general consensus is that women’s breasts are supposed to be large. Laurie wrote a play about a girl who was going to sign up for extensive and intrusive surgery in order to get rid of her large breasts, because in that society a flat chest is desired. She even went a step further and wrote in the play that the main character’ mother and aunt had to have their breasts removed because they suffered from breast cancer. They HAD to get their breasts removed. They didn’t choose it for cosmetic purposes. The girl must have seen the suffering that they went through because of the surgery, yet she was willing to go through that pain and suffering for cosmetic reasons. Writing the play based on the premises of wanting small breasts as opposed to large breasts (as are desired in the United States), the class was able to really see how absurd this is. By having the girls act like they wanted the surgery that bad for something that wasn’t typical in our own culture really helped the class to take a step back and realize how much emphasis we put on women and their physical appearances. The fact that the girl was begging for someone to cut her open and remove her breasts because her society deemed that to be beautiful is really sad. Breasts are natural parts of women’s bodies- everyone has them. Whether they are big or small, they are essentially there for the same scientific function.
Unfortunately, to answer the question about what bonds women, if it isn’t our physical appearances, I’d have to say that one of the main things that we all have in common is that we ARE judged by our appearances, and we all feel enormous pressure to look like the women we see in magazines. Maybe I am just saying that because I am 22 years old. Maybe my mother and people her age and her stage in life don’t feel the same way. Think about all of the products that are out there, designed specifically for women to look beautiful (whatever that is, anyways?). Women shave their legs, go tanning, cut and color their hair regularly, take time to style their hair daily, use anti aging creams by the time they’re 25 years old, and buy clothes only if they are “slimming”. Slimming usually means “uncomfortable” by the way. Am I missing something or do men just shower? They don’t have the extensive treatments and routines that women subject themselves to in order to conform to what’s “beautiful”, which is kind of bull. So, I think women aren’t bonded by what they physically look like, but by the fact that their physical appearance is always scrutinized.

I think the big picture is to get our world to a point where there is understanding. Ethnocentrism was the theme of class on Tuesday and it really hit home with me. I think THAT is the main goal. Laurie talked about when she first had that moment where the lightbulb lit up and she really heard what the other person was saying for the first time. I don’t mean that like it was the first time she physically listened, but that for the first time, she completely understood the story from another person’s perspective. She went on to say that that is literally the difference between peace and war- how true! Wars are fought over ideologies. How can I, who have grown up my entire life immersed in my own culture, and brainwashed to believe what my culture is taught me, pass judgment on someone else who was raised in a different culture? What makes them wrong and me right? It’s just because of how I was raised and what I saw in my life and my experiences. Had I been born into a different body that grew up in Afghanistan, for example, my mindset would be very different, just as my ideology would be. Wars arrive because two ideologies collide, and cannot coexist. The war in Afghanistan is going on because we, as Americans, have it in our ideology that it is our duty to liberate the rest of the world and spread democracy, because we value individual choice and rights. That conflicts with the culture in Afghanistan, where women are not treated as equal citizens and their leaders run the country more by dictatorships. Of course to me that sounds insane, and I think it is “better” to live in America with democracy. Our ideologies collide and so there is war. What if ethnocentrism existed between our two cultures, and both sides of had that light bulb moment like Laurie did where everything just clicked and we finally really “got it”. The world would be a much different place.
The end goal of race relations is also to make it better for future generations. Just as we all take care of the earth so that it is not destroyed for our great great great grandkids, we should be taking care of society and perceptions of people. Look how far race relations has come since the 1960’s. Many people who worked so hard to improve race relations back then are not even alive to see Obama as president. They didn’t work hard for themselves to have a better life, but for their kids and future generations to have a better life. We owe it to the people of the future to work on this now so that one day, the thought of judging people by the color of their skin will sound completely and utterly ridiculous.

I don’t think about welfare issues very much, because I am fortunate enough to not be on welfare, and hopefully never will be. I feel like the perception of welfare is very negative in this country and most people that complain about it either are ill informed, or don’t have a better way to solve it. It bugs me when people continuously complain about something that is going on if they are not willing to offer a better solution and spend time implementing it. I feel that if there was a better solution to the problem, it would have been put into law. Therefore, since that has not happened, welfare is intact today because it is the best solution available at this time.
The perception of welfare is that it enables lazy people to avoid getting jobs and continue to be lazy. My eighth grade law teacher told us a statistic that only about 5% of the people receiving welfare are able bodied males, that could otherwise find work. I have an aunt who is mentally retarded, and she receives welfare. She is 45 years old, and is not mentally capable of holding a job. Not only is she not able to work to support herself, she lives in a group home that requires around the clock care. She must pay for her rent at this house, along with the staff there. She has many doctors that she must see and her health expenses must be paid for also. How can she do this if she is not able to work?
As a society, we’ve decided many years ago that we would support people like this who cannot help themselves. We all agreed that we would give up some of our money, in the form of taxes, to support those who are less fortunate than us. May aunt is one of them, so I am very thankful that America believes it is necessary to help people who are mentally disabled. When I think of welfare, these are the people that I think of. I don’t think of the select few who abuse the system and are at risk for ruining it for everyone.
What would happen to these disabled people if the welfare system did not support them? They would probably be at their parents burden for the rest of their lives. Many of these people come from homes that simply do not have the resources to care for them in the way they need to be cared for. In my family, we are my aunt’s primary care givers, beyond what the government gives her. If my parents did not give her additional money, she wouldn’t be able to buy adequate clothes, personal products, or any entertainment.
I think if we got rid of the welfare system, it would only stand to “light a fire under” a few people’s butts, but tragically hurt the majority of people who actually do need it.

I decided to write about this particular post because of an interesting conversation that took place is my small group discussion last week. One girl, who is half Mexican and half “white” was telling our class how she feels about being a member of two separate race racial groups. Usually when people are asked what their race is, the question can be answered with a short, quick word. I guess in the case that the answer is African-American, there are two words in all, but it is a short answer nonetheless. Why is it that we have not gone into extreme detail in soc119 about multi racial people? When she first brought up some of the experiences she has gone through as a result of being biracial, the rest of the group pretty much went silent. Usually our class has opinions on everything, but this was different. It was almost as if no one had any thoughts or feelings or views on the subject. It goes back to the post where someone posed the question “why is at always talk about black and white people”. Yes, sometimes brown people are thrown into conversation also, but when we talk about the “white, black, and brown teams”, why don’t we automatically also say “multiracial” people.
My overall point is that there will always have to be an “other” category. There is simply no way to cover all the basis when talking about races or having people fill out a census. I think it is coming to a point where people are just being a bit too sensitive that their exact genetic makeup is not written as a choice on every single form they fill out. What is wrong about the “other” category? It’s not a category for the forgotten, or for people who are going to be ignored? It simply means more explanation is requested because it happens to not be one of the most common races out there. Common is not always a good thing, and it seems like in society most people strive to be unique in some way. I guess people strive to be unique in the way they think and dress, but not the color of their skin. I just really don’t understand what the big deal is about the “other” race category. As in the scenario of the girl in my class who is Mexican-American, what would she check on the census? Should we be forced to put down every single possible genetic makeup as a choice on the census? What if someone is one quarter white, one quarter Hispanic, one quarter black, and one quarter Asian? Would there be a separate choice for that person? Is it OK to have this person explain their unique racial makeup by checking off “other” and then explaining it further, or is that offensive? Maybe I’m not looking into this as deeply as I should be, since I am white- just plain white.

I’m not completely sure if this comment is fair. Although in class, Sam did call out the comment from a white person (when white people were asked what it means to be white and someone responded “that you have to listen to loud white girls in the computer lab”), and no comments were “called out” from non-white people. I was in class during this experiment, and in my opinion, there was nothing over the top rude said about white people by non-white people. It seemed like most of the responses were related to being privileged and other seemingly “positive” things.
I think that is interesting because, as a white female, I actually take offense to that. It can be just as hurtful to be called privileged as it can to be called things that non-white people are called. For example, it seems that black people are stereotyped as being poor and white people are stereotyped as being rich. So, when a white person finds success, they get the reaction that “of course that would happen, they came from money and had every advantage”. It is as if it was their whiteness that brought them success, no their personal hard work.
On the other hand, when black people find success they get the perception that they fought through all the barriers and are one in a million. It is as if EVERYTHING they achieved was because of their personal hard work. It is a double standard that is very unfair. That’s why I was so happy that in class, Sam really acknowledged that we should not be thinking like this. I think the exact words he used was “there are tons of black and brown people in this room that could buy some of your white families”. I’m sure they could.
I am personally very bothered by this mindset because, although white, I came from a lower middle class family. I am a first generation college student, and am paying for most of my college by myself. I’ve worked so hard for the past four years in class, and have held down a job during school, and have been fortunate enough to secure a job with Merrill Lynch/ Bank of America in New York City for after graduation. I would be willing to bet that when people meet me and talk to me for a couple minutes they would assume I come from a very affluent area, and that my family is extremely well educated. I feel like the battles I went through are discredited because people just assume I had everything handed to me. I am proud of where I am at and what I have achieved as compared to how I started out. I understand that not being white does make life harder, but unless someone has lived my exact circumstance, and the only difference is color, I really don’t know how we can assume skin color is that large of a determinant.

I think this is so incredibly sad that a school would cancel their prom in order to stop a gay couple from attending. When reading this article I couldn’t help but search for the date that it was written to confirm that it was actually written within the last decade- and not fifty or more years ago when same-sex anything was completely not tolerated. The fact that this is happening right now shows both how far we’ve come (since the issue and injustice is reaching world wise news, and many people and organizations are protesting), and how far we haven’t (the fact that this would take place at all).
Why would school administrators feel that this lesbian couple threatens the integrity of the school? They claimed that it was a “distraction to the educational process”. Were they referring to prom in general, or just this particular lesbian couple? It seems as though they were pointing to the two females in particular and saying that “YOU are a distraction”. How are they any different than anyone else? What would they do at prom that would be different from any “ordinary” straight couple? They would likely get ready separately, then meet to take pictures in some pretty, flowery, scenic place. Next, they would go to a nice dinner, either just by themselves or along with a larger group of friends. Then, at prom, they would dance and talk to their friends, and –god forbid- maybe even kiss a few times.
It is so unfair that they would do they exact same actions as anyone else, yet be judged for it completely differently. Because of two individuals they would shut down a prom for the entire student body? That is so extreme and unfair, to those girls and to the rest of their school as well. I wonder if these administrators actually asked the student body if they would, in fact, feel so uncomfortable by the presence of the gay couple at prom. As per one of the earlier lectures in class, I’d be willing to bet they would not be bothered by it. And why should they be? If the couple isn’t doing anything to involve you, what difference does it make?
The weirdest part about the whole thing is that I know MANY people who didn’t go to prom in a “couple”. I personally went with a good guy friend of mine, but a bunch of my good girl friends just went as a big group of friends. I wonder if this school would have opposed to eight girls going to prom in a group? My guess is since they did not label themselves a couple, and one was not distinctly wearing a tuxedo, they wouldn’t care. They would call this “normal”. What’s more normal- going to prom with your significance other, or going to prom single with a bunch of your best friends?
All in all, I just think it’s ridiculous, and I hope justice is served to that school.

I am white, and I have been to theme parties. I haven’t been to all that many, though. I think the only themed parties I’ve been to have had the following themes: Jersey Shore, Toga, and Wet Hot American Summer. A party revolved around Jersey Shore is NOT meant to make fun of Italians. I feel like almost all of my friends have some Italian in their blood. It is to poke fun at the ridiculousness that happens on that TV show. It is poking fun at those 7 individuals who chose to be on a reality show and be exploited for their actions. Toga parties and a Wet Hot American Summer themed party obviously is not directed towards making fun of racist groups so I won’t waste time discussing them. I’ve also heard of “ghetto” themed parties and “white trash” themed parties. I understand that the term “ghetto” is usually associated with minorities, but to white people, a ghetto theme just means they’ll be wearing chains and bandanas and sagging their pants. No one paints their skin black. It is not about a racial group, but instead just about a culture that is different for the people attending. Would black people ever have ghetto themed parties? I bet they would if they didn’t come from or were not a part of that particular culture. Would people who are in that culture have a ghetto themed parties? No, because it wouldn’t be a theme. Would people in the “white trash” culture have a white trash themed party where they would draw fake tattoos on themselves and wear wife beater tank tops? No, they would not. They might be more apt to have a theme of maybe “golf pros and tennis hoes”, which is another theme I’ve heard of. You can bet that a country club would not host such an event. I don’t think that white people have parties to poke fun at other racial groups at all. I don’t think themes are even about the races. Maybe I’m missing something, but I’ve never heard of a “black people” themed party, or a “asian people” party. It is not about the race- it is about dressing up and acting like you belong to a culture that is unlike your own.
It is also not true that white people are the only ones that throw themed parties. Freshman year I lived in supplemental housing and one of my roommates was black. She basically hung out with all other black people (which is normal, I hang out with mostly white people, not that that’s good or bad, it’s just how people naturally tend to gravitate towards each other). She would always go to these parties that were in Pollock commons, and they OFTEN had themes. I don’t remember what kinds of themes off hand, but she was always dressing up and telling me and our other roommate about them. To be honest, they seemed fun. I’m not trying to insinuate they were racially themed parties. Would I be offended if they threw a “white themed” party though? Not at all. Actually I’d be very anxious to see how people would dress/ act, because I honestly don’t know what the overall “white person” stereotype is. That would be interesting.

After watching this woman, I agree that it is very inspiring. It further proves that a person’s destiny is truly a mix of “nurture” and “nature”. If that woman’s soul was born into a person in an upper class family in the United States, there is no doubt that she would be immensely successful, financially that is. Would she also be compassionate, kind, spiritually whole, or even happy? That’s another question. I really like hearing people’s takes on the “determinism” debate because it is very close to home for me. I am from an extremely affluent and wealthy area, but I personally am lower-middle class. My family income is so low that all throughout school I received school lunches as a reduced rate. I’m sure no one ever knew this. I bought my own car at age 16, and have always paid for my insurance, maintenance, and gas. I am on my own cell phone plan, and buy all of my clothing. All of my class mates were given cars on their 16 birthdays, many of which were BMW’s. They never worked during high school, and do not have a job in college. They charge spring break on their parents credit cards. I am not saying that these people aren’t great- many of them are the sweetest people I know- and I see them being judged by others negatively. I have no ill feeling towards my old peers- I think growing up in my situation gave me a gift that they will never have- the gift of awareness and appreciation. I have seen and experienced things that my peers never will. When they hear about low income people suffering, they really do not understand the magnitude that can have on a person.
Neither of my parents went to college. I am one of four children. I just secured a job with Merrill Lynch/ Bank of America, and will be working on Wall Street starting in July. I can honestly tell you that I did that with no help from family connections. I’m proud of that because I feel like I beat the odds. However, I do think that growing up in a working class family gave me extra motivation to prove what I can do. When I tell people from home that I am moving to NYC after graduation, they are happy for me, but don’t really understand the depth of my accomplishments. I am getting to the same place as many of my former peers. People assume I’m just “another rich girl from a rich family whose Dad got them a job. The rich get richer.” It really discredits the hard work that I put in to get to the same place that many other people were born into. Again, I am not angry about this. My family and I know what an accomplishment I’ve made, and I feel very appreciative and lucky to have gotten that job- I don’t feel entitled at all.
In regards to this woman, I do think it is unfair that she doesn’t have a fighting chance at large success, as many people in the USA do. If everyone was judged strictly on the fight they have inside of her, she would be a millionaire. That is just not the way the world works, and it never will. I believe that with each generation, the income gap closes a little bit more, but in my lifetime I don’t expect to see a huge change in social classes, and or situations like this woman is in.

I think the title of this article is all wrong- “Men and Women- Are We Really That Different?” The answer is yes, we are that different, and the article this post is referring to reinforces that. The Roxxxy is a female doll. It is not a male doll, nor does there seem to be a male counterpart coming out in the market place anytime soon. Therefore, a better question to ask might be “Are All Women Really That Different?” The fact that there is a female sex doll coming into the market place is one thing, but the article goes on to say that it comes with four different programmed personalities. That’s almost like saying all female personalities fit into one of these four general categories. I guess in this particular situation they are referring strictly to sexual categories of personality. I wonder if that is suggesting that females can switch between a bunch of different sexual alter egos, or that the owner of the doll is in some way having sex with four completely different types of women. Either way, it’s just completely strange to me that there would be so much demand for this project in the first place. $7000 is a lot of money- certainly enough to buy something of great functional use that doesn’t elicit meaningless sex with a non-human. The article pointed out that the product isn’t even out yet but they are already getting many preorders for it. This great demand really shows where America stands on the issue of sex. It is certainly not the 1950s anymore. Back then, married couples on tv shows were shown sleeping in separate beds at night. Sexuality and sex wasn’t talked about, and it definitely was not shown in the media. As a culture, Americans tended to wait until marriage, or at least until in love, to engage in sex with another person. Even so, it was never really talked about. Fast forward to today and things are quite different. Sex is everywhere in the media, and everyone is always talking about it. I think this leads everyone to believe that everyone is and should be sexually active all the time. Whether or not people are actually having sex as much as everyone else thinks, I don’t know, but I do know its on people’s minds more now that it probably ever was. People no longer wait for emotional intimacy to engage in physical intimacy. That connection is broken. Thus, I don’t find it completely surprising that people can “fulfill their sexual needs” with a non- human object. Since love and/or a real connection is no longer a precursor or a requirement for sex, why not have sex with something you can buy. It is a lot safer than picking up a prostitute or rape, which are other ways some people deal with their sexual aggression and lack of consenting partners. So are men and women really alike or different? I’m not sure but I don’t think that has any relevance to the artilce.

The first thing that surprised me in this post was the fact that there are over 7,000 languages that exist in the world today. Off the top of my head I can probably name about fifteen. Where are all of these languages spoken? I guess many countries don’t have one national/ unifying language and their citizens all speak different languages. That must be so confusing for running a country. How can the president or leader address his people? How can people vote in election without understanding who stands for what? How can laws be made and ideas be made actionable if the people don’t understand what the others mean? I’m honestly not sure if English is officially America’s primary language, but I would assume it’s the most common. In area that I’m from there are a lot of Spanish speaking people, so some places have their menus/ signs/ everything displayed in both English and Spanish. Of course a lot of people get really upset at this and say things like “if you live here in America you should speak our language”. I guess that can be true if English is recognized as our official language. It would certainly make everyone’s lives much easier if the entire world spoke the same language, but that simple is not possible. How would we feel if we moved to another country where English isn’t spoken and we were expected to know their language right away? It would be extremely frustrating. How about if our parents chose to move to another country so we were forced to go also. That would be hard as well because we would have to go to school and learn in a language that we don’t even know. In order to communicate with our families we would have to know one language but to communicate with friends and peers in school we would have to speak an entirely different language.
To get back to the article, I have to admit that it doesn’t bother me very much that half of the languages will disappear in the next 100 years or so. I guess I’m not “tapped into this particular mystery”. Language is a mode of communication. Communication happens between two or more people. If that woman was the single last speaker of her “language” what purpose is it serving? She is not able to communicate to anyone through it, so is it really even a language then? If eventually all of these languages are only known by one person, there is no point to its existence. It will actually be helpful and more efficient for the world to speak in fewer languages so we can work together more. She can talk to herself and we can hear the sounds she is making but its serving no communication purpose. Who translated what she was saying if she was the last person to ever speak that language? It doesn’t really seem to make sense. If no one else knew the language how do they know she was talking about the Tsunami?