It may be possible that these people in society today who can't seem to accept people such as gays or transgenders maybe fear change...ironically, this change is accepting people for who they are- not really a new idea, but one that isn't easy to act on apparently. Personally, I hope Mr. Devoureau gets his job back because this would be a moral victory not only for him, but for those who are in a similar position of prejudice in the work place, including women in some cases.
In today's society, we have so many different kinds of people in terms of diversity and variety that it's hard to keep track of who belongs with who- in essence, we abandon the motto "we are all one" when some people act against others like this. I don't necessarily agree with the whole transgender thing, but that doesn't mean I'd discriminate. Gender is described as the subclass based on characteristics..so sociologically speaking, all this man has is a few different characteristics than the "norm" that some authorities live by. If this man has lived his whole live as a man, and who has been considered to be a man his whole life by himself and by those who know him, then his employer or people in general should learn to accept that and get on with life.
After reading this, I thought back to a research paper (exploring an issue) I did for my English class about the debate- the issue of gay marriage. One of my three main points I discussed was whether or not gay couples or gay people in general, could positively contribute to society. Well, sure they can- being gay doesn't effect how smart you are; I mean, there are many homosexual people at Penn State, many of which will graduate with a degree. With that being said, to say that this transgender man can't work a job that requires monitoring urine sampling is ridiculous. From the man or group of people who fired him, their standpoint was probably: it's uncomfortable to have a natural "woman-turned-man" monitoring this job. However, that is basically discriminating against L.J.
Additionally, many men don't want the image of "secret holder," sensitive, or compassionate partner to go beyond the relationship. However, this is what women look for. Sure, women might prefer a six-pack and a strong willed man over an obese lazy man, but the point this inmate is trying to make is that a real man always cares and loves and is loyal to his wife or girlfriend, and not be afraid to let his guard down. That's another thing that goes right along with the manly man- not being able to put your guard down. To be in a successful relationship, it needs to be equal on both sides, which means that men have to demonstrate emotional empathy and feelings toward their partner, while at the same time be the protective force over her. This guy, C., had to go to jail before he realized that taking care of a women and being a real man has requirements: letting your macho man guard down, being emotionally open, and admitting he is wrong (even if he isn't)- all things which might not be easy to do, but are essential to continue a lasting and meaningful relationship with a woman.
I thought this article was pretty relevant to all guys, not in the sense that we're not behind bars, but the theme he wrote about..how to be a real man. In today's society, the word "man" is so often associated with a muscular, violent, manly man who doesn't take no for an answer and will stand his ground "like a man." Unfortunately, this is a stereotype to which many males live up to, and some even beat their girlfriends, wives, and daughters. The man C. explained that being sincere is key to a successful and mutual relationship, and being able to go above and beyond for that particular girl- this is no easy task, but I guess that's maybe the meaning behind all this; that even though it's difficult to adapt to a romantic level is worth it in the end, kind of like an education that takes years to finish.
We hear about these rags to riches stories of people winning the big ticket in run down, very low class areas, but this was interesting to hear about the verbal abuse and threats to the one winning the money. There's a movie with Bow Wow about him winning a ticket (the movie is called Lottery Ticket), and even though I didn't see it, I could tell from the previews that everyone around him tried to get a piece of his wealth, and not in a peaceful manner. Going through big changes in life is no easy task, and getting rich is no different, even though we as citizens of the United States have this "American Dream" hyped up to believing that if we don't get rich there's no success in life. This might not hold true for everyone, but sociologically speaking, we're likely to follow in the paths of our parents. That's not to say getting wealthy is a bad thing, but such a dramatic event as becoming a millionaire overnight doesn't reap all the benefits we believe it to have.
"Money can't buy me love." "Money is the root of all evil." "Money can't buy you happiness." These are all quotes which we've all heard many times in our lives. I know I've heard the 3rd quote many times now that I'm in college, seeing how my parents and others have stressed to me that I shouldn't choose a profession simply because of the money. While indeed money can't buy you love or happiness, that might not be entirely true. For example, I'm stating the obvious when I say that if someone living in poverty would receive a small amount of money (to get over the poverty "line"), he/she would be happier. Now as for the lottery, we discussed in class the story of the very poor family that won the lottery, bought a house off of a rich family, and ended up dispatching all of their valuables because they had no idea what to do with them or didn't know thier value. Just like going from very rich to very poor, the same tragedy can happen to someone going from poor to rich, as described in the article.
Would they conform to the "norm" as sociologists seem to think will happen, or are there enough people out there that won't take that for an answer? I seem to think that this would be the case (non-conforming) because one of the things studied in the Christian religion is how the rest of the world is acting one way, and Christians aren't supposed to follow the "wrong'' ways of society. With that said, not all Christians do this all the time, myself included, but that's all part of the learning experience. To say that religions will become extinct based off these censuses doesn't seem like a legit enough of a fact to make that true (the one was conducted in 1968). It does seem like a fact that people like to be a part of a group moreso than being alone, but I don't think that will be strong enough to overcome the millions of Christians, Catholics, Jew, etc in the world that would take thier faith to the grave.
This was very interesting to say the least. I've got to say that before reading this article, I was aware that many people weren't religious, sure, but I didn't know that sociologists predict the extinction of religion. Being religious myself in Christianity, I notice a lot of times that non-Christians act in ways with the mindset, "live for today and who gives a shit about tomorrow" attitude. This then leads to multiple problems, whether that be crime, public drunkenness (which then can lead to crime) and other care-free attitudes. That's not to say Christians never have this attitude because no ones perfect and I often have this attitude, but there is a meaning to life that goes beyond Earth, and because of that, the mindset is an eternal one. As discussed in class, Sam made a good point when he said no side will ever truly win the "God" argument since it ultimately comes down to faith. However, if religions did become extinct as said in the article, what would happen to the believers who lived their whole lives based on this faith?
M., the inmate, did in fact assist in a murder, and therefore will have consequences, but I think he should've been put in a juvenile institution and had a lot of counseling instead. He said, "Don't pity me..don't have sympathy for me; I knew what I was doing." Well, that's fine for him, the one who did it, but just going back to an example Sam gave in class was the moral issue over what to do with a little boy who accidentally shoots someone in the face. It all goes back to the issue of what age do we really have control of what we do (sociologically speaking, never) and when can we face the consequences of our actions as adults. But it was nice to hear that side of inmates, which is that they aren't there to receive pity and that they all don't get this extra sense of wisdom from being behind bars for an extended period of time.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Joint