This was a topic that I talked about with my friend after class. The girl from lecture who stated that she thinks immigrants should only come to this country legally is really missing the whole issue with illegal immigration. These people are not well to do individuals who just simply refuse to fill out some paper work to get into the US, they are poor, desolate and desperate for a better life. These people don’t think they can achieve a better life in the country they’re in (whether it be Mexico, Cuba or some other country) and for that reason they try to come to the good old US of A. These people have families to care for and cannot find a good paying job in their country. When they see the US thriving, or even right now when we’re in a recession our economy is still far above theirs, they want to come to the US of A to try to get a piece of all of the wealth that surrounds us as Americans. So for this reason these people cross our borders. Most of these are not bad people looking to exploit our American way of life, rather they are families seeing what we have and hoping to have some of it for themselves. We live in the richest most powerful country in the world where resources are nearly limitless and we can nearly anything that we could imagine. I know if I was on the outside of the gates so to say looking in, I would try just about anything to get in. I think what Sam said in class is very important to keep in mind to for the girl who spoke in class, the US’s immigration policy is shaped by businesses and powerful individuals. The poorest individuals from other countries who really want to come here can’t (for good reason) because we don’t want a bunch of poor people to come in because that’s not good for our economy. Instead we allow in individuals with an education or some other skills or connections that make them valuable to us. But the oppressed peoples of the world still want to come here and because of that they are forced to do it by illegal means.
Immigration is a very complicated issue, as Sam pointed out in class. Parts of our economy are dependent on migrant workers crossing the border and doing jobs that Americans simply don’t want to do. I find that a very interesting problem. It seems that many Americans have elevated themselves above doing manual labor like picking crops out in California. We have just become a country of fat lazy yuppies who refuse to get our hands a little dirty, even when we are faced with the highest unemployment rate since the great depression (don’t hold me to that, I know we’re at least close) American farmers and businesses still rely heavily on the work put in by migrant workers.

Men, just like women, are products of our environment and culture. I think for men however it is a much more passive and subconscious thing when compared to women at least in terms of appearances. I would say especially say in this college culture that we find ourselves in, men on a day to day basis find ourselves under very little pressure in terms of our appearances. The majority of guys in this town live off of wearing predominately T-shirts day in and day out, especially when the weather is nice. Most of these T-shirts are interchangeable between every guy and there is very little variation, at least from what I have seen and experienced.
One area that men do feel more peer pressure is when we talk about drugs and alcohol. I know for me personally I felt, what I perceived as pressure from my friends from high school to drink and smoke weed. I know this isn’t the case for everyone, but what can I say, my friends from home are a bunch of druggies I guess. My group of friends started smoking weed in 7th grade, which is definitely a time where this kind of peer pressure has more effect on all of us. I remember feeling that I really needed to smoke in order to, townsend quit being such a mo fo what would happen if Pinocchio said my nose will grow, fit in. These kinds of feelings have definitely subsided as I’ve aged but this was one of the only aspects from my life that I feel that I really felt a pressure to conform to my peers and surroundings.
I see a lot of people posting about men conforming in order to try to look big and muscular. I would have to differ in my opinion here. Though clearly many guys do hit the gym 6 days a week and down their protein shakes and creatine, this certainly isn’t the majority. I know that there are the Jersey Shore bros out there that really do care about blasting their pecs, getting tan and fuckin bitches, however most guys do not fit this stereotypical role. Most guys are conscious of their appearance obviously, but they don’t obsess over it the way I feel that many women sometimes can do. Just take for instance the average time that it takes men compared to women to get ready to go out at night. I know plenty of girls that take well over an hour to prepare for a night, whereas men usually take no longer than a half hour to get ready, including a shower. Maybe this is just another product of our culture though, for guys to not care that much about the way they look, and therefore we still are conforming to our society. Who knows.

I found this video very interesting. This was the first time that I had seen it, and it really struck me. I have two little nieces that are constantly playing with dolls. All of their dolls are white and I wander whether or not they would have similar answers if asked to say which of the dolls are the good ones or not. I suspect that a lot of this has to do with doll production strategies. From their stand point it makes sense to make dolls that look like the largest percent of people, in order to appeal to the largest population of people so they can make the largest amount of money. Based off of this model, children of color are often forced to play with dolls that are white. Children can start to associate with external stimuli, and if their dolls are white than I guess they start to think that for some reason that they are white. As far as saying that the white dolls are the good dolls, I can’t really account for that quite as easily. High dogs and shit, lion king wasn’t racist, is was about lions, and would they be anywhere else but in Africa. I thought Sam’s story about his friends little girl coming home crying was an interesting perspective. The little girl was black, and was told by a white boy that she was dirty. Not because the boy was racist, just simply because he was a child who thought about his own skin when it gets dark and that it usually means that he got dirt on it and had to clean it off. This obviously upset the little black girl because she probably thought that maybe she is dirty somehow. This is a really messed up thing to have to happen to a little child. I’m sure that it could have a pretty big effect on the way that she perceives herself and others in a subconscious way. An apple a day keeps the doctor away, so eat your fruits and vegetables kids. I wander how common of an occurrence this is for children of color, especially ones living in a predominately white neighborhood or one that is pretty equally mixed. It seems that kids of a certain age easily rationalize things like that and that this situation could have been played out many times before. I wander what this video says about our society as a whole, and whether this will start to change now that white are becoming less and less of a majority in the country. As the populations of blacks, Hispanics and Asians rise I feel that toy companies will be forced to try to accommodate these rising populations in order to appeal to the parents of minorities and therefore make more money.

Bodily functions are varied and complex, none more so than female menstruation. This process is seen in all female placental mammals and is a visible sign of female fertility. This being said the process is arguable as normal as hunger or many other biological processes, as pointed out by Sam in lecture. I understand what Sam was trying to say, and to some degree I agree with him. I think people should be educated on the process of menstruation and in the proper context, we should all be able to talk about it. Where I disagree with Sam is when he talks about how if men had periods the whole process would be much more out in the open. Males have a somewhat similar bodily function unique to them which involves blood, it’s called an erection. Though not quite as taboo a subject as menstruation, erections are not usually talked about in everyday conversation, at least among my group of friends at least. As a guy I know a thing or two about getting erections, and I can attest that they do not always come at the most appropriate or practical times. For example, all men can attest to the phenomena of the morning wood, which I’m sure some females are completely unaware of. This strange process is how men everywhere are greeted many mornings when we first wake up. Additionally there are those mystery boners that guys get for no apparent reason throughout the course of the day, sometimes in the middle of class or even studying. These strange occurrences are not shared with others. No guys are giving hi 5’s for getting an erection in the middle of a calculus lecture, simply because these occurrences seem to be innately embarrassing.
Now both of these processes are completely natural and are necessary for the reproductive process, but both, for the most part seem to bring a sense of embarrassment with it. I can’t say for sure if these feelings are culturally imposed or not, but to my knowledge there is no culture that completely relishes either process. There may be some place on earth where the men boldly proclaim “I have a raging hard-on!” and the women scream “I am totally bleeding right now!”, but as far as I can tell this is not the case. So if there are no cultures that embrace said processes, maybe there is just something about them that makes people not feel the need to share. Some biological processes are just kind of unappealing (no one likes to look at other peoples’ shits (well most people don’t at least)).
As for the question posed, if men had periods would tampons be free? I can emphatically say no. Assuming the world was the same place except for this minor difference, companies have male employees, management etc. and these men like to make money! So of course the men/women in charge of the companies producing tampons would not just give them out for free, why would they if they could make money off of them. Toothpaste, shampoo and soap are all necessary products used by both men and women, and I haven’t seen them being handed out for free on a massive scale.

This is a very interesting story. I’m a guy and have never had a female coach, so I can’t speak with any first-hand knowledge, but I think I might have trouble with having a female for such a physically demanding sport. Football is a very rough physical sport that is very male dominated. This usually means that woman have limited experience playing the game. This woman seems to be somewhat of an exception, having played in high school and in a woman’s professional league, so clearly she is familiar and knowledgeable of the game. Ms. Robins does seem to be very confident with herself and her abilities, which she will certainly need in order to coach the team effectively. I feel that in order for her to have a lot of success she must have something special as a coach. This is similar to the situation that Jackie Robinson found himself in when he became the first black player to play major league baseball. If Jackie Robinson would have been an average or mediocre player, it would have been easy to write him and consequently black people, off, but due to his excellent play managers, fans and owners were forced to not write off black people as athletes because to do so would have meant limiting themselves to a whole community of great players. The same is true for this situation, If Natalie Robins can show that she is a great coach and produce a good team, than others will be forced to accept that woman can coach as well as men.
This being said I find it unlikely that woman will make a big leap into football coaching or playing. The facts remain that generally speaking woman are smaller and weaker than men. In a high school setting where the level of play is lower these physical differences can be overcome if a female is very skilled, however when the game is played at a high level women will be unable to handle the level of physicality. This is due to human anatomy and the elevated level of muscular hypertrophy possible in men. These differences make me feel that many guys would have trouble accepting a woman as a coach. The prevailing opinion would most likely be that she would be unable to have an intricate grasp on the game due to her smaller body and strength. In the words of Daniel Tosh “Women can do anything men can do, except math, chess, running, jumping, lifting stuff etc… don’t get me wrong I love women I just think they should drink from a different water fountain.” In all seriousness though the best of luck to her, I hope she succeeds, I just think she will have to be a great coach in order to be respected by her players and fellow coaches.

This is a pretty interesting article. The concept does seem innately racist, however, I wander if the sides were reversed if the views would be quite as strongly negative. Let’s say the NAACP sets up a basketball tournament that targets inner city African Americans who could otherwise be struggling with gang violence, or something along those lines. If all of the tournament’s participants and organizers are black and white players are not allowed to participate, would this be considered racist? I would imagine that a smaller percentage of people would think so. This scenario is a little different considering I really doubt anything other than making money is on Mr. Lewis’ mind, but for the sake of argument we’ll look at this. With entirely black lineups it’s easy to see the similarities between the two leagues. In the words of Dr. White, the NAACP president from Atlanta, “if it looks like, quacks like and acts like a duck, it probably is a duck.” Now I’m not here to defend this moose fellow, because most likely he is some bigoted prick, but there definitely are two sides to this argument.
The NBA and college basketball is not without its problems. The recent gun charges filed against Gilbert Arenas, as well as past instances, like Ron Artest leaping into the stands and assaulting a fan are certainly two examples of the poor mindsets of some of the leagues players. These acts are not the norm I realize, and there are great men inside the league that engage in wonderful acts of philanthropy, but the image associated with basketball players has been negatively affected because of the bad actions of a few individuals. This being said I’m sure some people out there don’t like to watch the NBA because they think it’s filled with these kinds of criminals. And for these people maybe the AABA league would be a welcome alternative. I mean who wouldn’t want to watch a bunch of slower less athletic whitey’s who can’t jump, opposed to Lebron James jumping from the free throw line and dunkin the shit out of the ball. At least the White guys would have solid fundamentals though. I wander however whether or not the all white league would even have dunking? Also I looked up the AABA, and on the Wikipedia it says that Moose is thinking about starting a reality TV show called "Snow Ball vs. Bro Ball", which I have to say is a pretty hilarious title for a reality TV show. But I digress. The whole issue is one that on the surface seems pretty straight forward and racist, but I would just remind people to not completely condemn such a league quite yet. Just wanting to play a different style of basketball is not necessarily wrong, and if Mr. Moore thinks that people would rather watch his slow ass brand of “snow ball” than let him sink his savings into this venture, that I’m sure is going to have trouble sticking around for too long.

This post brings up a lot of the issues that Sam has talked about throughout the semester so far. Sam regularly talks about how we all start at different levels in society and because of these starting points people have different opportunities in their lives, and those that start at the top usually end up at the top. All of us are fortunate enough to attend Penn State, making all of us well ahead of the majority of people. Obviously some of us are much better off than others, with some of us having to work a full time job to go here, and others having their entire tuition taken care of by their parents. Most students fall somewhere in-between these two extremes, but it’s pretty safe to assume that the vast majority of us come from middle class families.
I think most people understand this, but where Sam starts to lose people is when he says that those of us fortunate enough to have some help from home are unworthy. I hear a lot of questions in class that are directed this way. This is probably due to the rather forceful language Sam uses. I don’t want to speak for Sam but I think another way of putting it is that we should all consider ourselves very fortunate. To be born into a situation that enables you to attend a well respected university, when only 15% of Americans have a college degree, is an opportunity that should not be taken lightly. Being born into this family had nothing to do with us, we were just fortunate enough to be the result of our parents having sex. We could have just as easily been born into a destitute family in Haiti like Yvrose Jean Baptiste was. I think we could all benefit from reflecting on this scenario. Even our discussions of the poor in the US don’t stack up to poverty in other areas of the world.
All of us are born with varying degrees of benefits. All of us need to realize however that we are so far ahead of the majority of people in the world from the beginning. Is this because we deserve it? No. You can’t be deserving of something that was in no way shaped by your own doing. Again I don’t want to speak for Sam, but I’m sure his choice of words is for a reason. I’m sure it is related to trying to stimulate us to think. Telling us that we should all be thankful has a tendency to go in one ear and out the other, but this phrasing makes us stop and think.

The entire argument over marriage in this country seems to be filled with very different views, ranging from a holy institution to a drunken night/mistake in Las Vegas. The argument for the holy implications of marriage, seem to be steadily losing their grip on the psyche of the masses. I feel that in the not too distant past, the majority of the population would agree that marriage was a sacred union between a man and woman before the eyes of God, that no man should set asunder etc. etc. Now, however, our society has become a more secular one. True, many people still hold these feelings towards marriage, but now many people see marriage more so as a decision between two people to try to make a life together. With this new viewpoint in mind, it seems only reasonable that two men or two women should have the same rights as a man and woman have.
The argument that marriage is sacred seems increasingly out of touch with how our popular culture views marriage. Marriage has become a very lighthearted decision in our culture. We have shows that marry off relative strangers, and drunken fools being married by an Elvis impersonator. I think most people would agree that neither of these examples are in any way representative of a holy union, and yet we see no backlash towards these types of activities. Is it not more of a disgrace to the institution to have two individuals who have no real connection with each other to be able to participate, than to allow two gay/lesbian individuals who love each other dearly to wed?
The guy in this video says that he whole heartedly supports giving gay couples rights equivalent to those of their heterosexual counterparts, but just calling their bond by a different name than marriage. This seems unnecessary to me. This argument focuses far too much on vocabulary. Marriage after all is just a word. If you feel that gays deserve all the same rights as heterosexuals, why not let them call it marriage as well. If it looks, acts like and gets the same rights as marriage, why not just call it a marriage. By giving their union a different name it leaves the door open for further discriminations. Leaving distinctions between the two groups would not lead to an equal view by society at large. The LGBT movement has made massive strides over the last half century. Furthering the distinction seen between gay unions however, would be a step in the wrong direction. State support of this stills holds the view that somehow gay love is different and not equal to straight love. Marriage is just a word after all.

I though this article brought up an interesting perspective that I hadn’t really ever considered. Oddly enough I actually stumbled upon the Pocahontas/Avatar image last week sometime and have it as my desktop background. Also I just finished a book called Ishmael, which is a book about human beings and how we came to feel somehow separate from the planet that we live on. The book talks about how “civilized” cultures ultimately feel that it is our right and duty to shape the world in any way that will benefit us and how many indigenous peoples reject this notion and find a way to accept their fate and live in harmony with their environment. This is a very similar theme to that explored by Avatar.

The white messiah aspect of Avatar/Pocahontas /The Last Samurai/Last of the Mohicans etc. movies interests me. The only time I remember this being brought up was in an episode of Chappelle’s show where Paul Mooney does a skit and talks about the Last Samurai. He says something along the lines of, “First they had The Mexican starring Brad Pitt, and now they have the Last Samurai starring Tom Cruise. Well I’ve written a movie called the Last Nigger on Earth starring Tom Hanks.” This of course is a comedic reference and meant to be funny, but I’ve found that often comedians have some of the most interesting and well developed opinions on matters of race. Maybe it’s because comedians aren’t forced to adhere to political correctness or trying not to offend anyone that they are able to really get to the meat of many issues involving race. Getting back to the article, the white messiah complex has obviously been done many times throughout modern cinema. I’m not sure whether or not it is really a conscious decision by the director, but when this theme repeats itself as many times as it has it seems to indicate at least some kind of trend, and trends are usually a little bit more indicative of people’s feelings. Could any of these movies be made with a non-white male lead and still have the same effect? Surely it could work just as well if there was a movie made about Korean oppression under Japanese rule prior to the end of World War 2 and a subsequent revolt led by a Japanese man. This is one example certainly of other races oppressing native people, but it seems that throughout the last 400-500 years or so white imperialism has had so many more documented cases of exploitation and destruction of natives. To me then, it seems that the role of a white messiah in all of these films is less indicative of the supposed need of a white savior and more of the frighteningly large prevalence throughout history of white tyranny and oppression. I look at these films as more of a wakeup call for white people to realize what they are doing is wrong more so than a sympathetic white individual being the only salvation of an otherwise seemingly helpless people.

Seeing this video makes me think of all of the behaviors that become acceptable in the name of fandom. It’s not much different than a lot of the things that can occur at Penn State football games. When people act ridiculous and make fools of themselves it is just accepted as part of supporting their team, as if somehow by screaming and threatening opposing fans or players will somehow help their team to win the game.
European soccer tends to make our sports fans seem timid by comparison however. Soccer is not just a game there but more of a lifestyle and source of immense pride for regions and countries as a whole. Watching the ESPN piece I was rather taken aback though. I knew that the fans were ridiculous and had been known to riot and be violent, but I didn’t realize the level of racism that was encountered by some of the black players. I find it interesting that in the US even people who would be considered racist usually are able to get past their prejudices for a race when an athlete is helping their team win. It’s strange that in Europe this isn’t the case especially considering how important soccer success is to people over there. It wouldn’t be as surprising to me for instance if these kinds of things were happening to less established weaker players, but when it takes place with the top players in the entire world, like Henry and Eto’o, it seems to me that these individuals feelings are very deeply rooted in their psyche and it will take a lot of effort in order to change their perspectives.
Considering all of these things it hadn’t really ever occurred to me that there has never been any widespread civil rights movement in any of the European countries. This helps to put things into perspective a little better. Here in the US where so much of our culture comes from different areas of the world because of our history of widespread immigration, our population has slowly become more accepting of others. But in Europe, immigration of people from different continents is not nearly as widespread. This lack of diversity, has led natives to feel threatened by the sudden surge of immigration from places like sub-Saharan Africa. This mindset was certainly shared by previous generations of Americans, who subjugated almost every major ethnic group to some sort of discrimination at one time or another. I feel that it will take some kind of collective effort of governments in order to help change the mindsets of their native populations. The sudden influx of immigrants will certainly lead to some kinds of strife between the two groups.