During the lecture on Thursday, we were told that several weeks ago, a girl was passing out invitations to a party with the title “Down with the Brown.” However, it appeared that she only handed them out to white people. Additionally, she only handed them out to very particular white people. I’m not quite sure when this happened, but I completely missed it when it was occurring. When it was brought to our attention in class on Thursday, I have to admit that I was a little surprised.

This got me thinking about the whole dynamic of thing, such as why is it that they needed to physically hand out invitations to white people to get them to come to their party and what would I do in that situation. I guess I had never given it much deep thought before, but I did realize that racial groups tend to stick with each other. And yet, to think about the idea of someone trying to entice white people to come to a black party feels like it should not be necessary. Albeit, I see why they did. People tend not to be comfortable if they are the significant minority in a situation.

So what if I was in that situation? If she had handed me an invitation to the “Down with the Brown” party, would I have gone? To me, there are certain conditions under which I would attend. For example, if I was invited to this party and did not know a single person prior to going, I have to admit that I probably would not go. But that would be the same if I were invited to a party that was majority white. If I got invited to any party and did not know anyone, I would be uncomfortable. Now, if I either knew someone or was allowed to bring someone with me, there would be a much higher chance of me attending. I really do think I would go if I had a friend there with me, but as I said before, that would be the same for any party.

Sam then proceeded to ask the girl who had handed out the invitations to pick out people that appeared to be “down with the brown” in class. After she had chosen a few people (all guys, might I add), he asked her what qualities made someone look like he or she was “down with the brown.” She seemed to have somewhat of a hard time answering that question. She could not really put it into words. However, I found it interesting that after she tried to explain it, she made a comment somewhat to the effect of “well, black people know what I mean.” I think this whole lecture, to an extent, perpetuated the differences between black and white.

So this week we finally got to hear the infamous “Needy Penis” lecture with Sam’s wife, Laurie. Sam sent us an e-mail on ANGEL prior to the lecture, just to inform everyone when it was. He also told us that if we happened to have a significant other, this would be a great class to bring your significant other to. So needless to say, this lecture was really very built up, and I must admit that I was slightly disappointed. He made it sound like it was going to be this life changing experience, but essentially everything he and his wife covered were things I already knew.

So in regards as to why it seems that women both pretend to be fully satisfied and then consequently lie about the fact that they actually were not satisfied to the point of completion, that was already something that I knew. However, I must admit that I had never given it that much thought before. But after really discussing the issue in class, which I had actually never thought of as an actual issue prior to this class, I see that there really is something very messed up about this whole dynamic.

Why do women pretend to experience something they actually do not feel? And why do men appear to not care enough to make sure that the woman is fully satisfied like he probably is, by the end of the encounter? I suppose the best guess I have as to why women fake orgasms and tell men that it was “great” for them is because they do not want to feel like something is wrong with them. I could see how women could view not having an orgasm during sex as a bad thing, and if they are not experiencing it, then they themselves in turn are bad, so to speak. Although, on the other hand, I would think that if the guy I was with was not able to finish me then it was the guy I was with who was bad in bed. So I really do not have an adequate answer for that question. And maybe men do not ask because women do not ask them? But on the other hand of that situation, a woman does not necessarily have to ask a man if he was satisfied. You just know.

Regardless of what the actual cause is behind the issue, I do believe that it is something that needs to be remedied. It is not okay that many women are going without orgasms while it is leaps and bounds more common for men to finish. Maybe both parties need to be more comfortable with addressing the fact, even in one-night stand situations.

Unfortunately, there were no new blog question videos posted on the World in Conversation website, so I had to go back and find an old question to respond to.

How do you find a middle ground between only thinking about a problem and trying to find a plausible solution to the problem? I think the answer to this question is that you can’t find a middle ground between thinking about a legitimate problem, such as the Native Americans like we discussed in class, and finding a solution to that problem. At least, this is the case for me personally. And I also got the sense from many people in class that they too were unable to find this so-called “middle ground.”

By only thinking about this terrible problem, it brings on an immense amount of guilt for me as an American and sadness and pity for the Native Americans. And because I am having these feelings when I think about the problem, it makes me want to at least attempt to think of a solution. Now granted, there has been an extreme amount of damage that has been done to these people. Given this fact, it is possible that there may be no satisfactory solution because of the years of anguish they have suffered.

But speaking about middle grounds, I think it is possible for some solution to be reached if everyone is able to accept the fact that we probably need to reach a middle ground between government assistance for the Native Americans and the Native Americans being able to help themselves. It may seem harsh to say that the Native Americans may be a part of the problem themselves, but I think in this case, it may be true. I think in any case where a people is being repressed, the people themselves have to be an integral part in affecting change, because if not, who is going to do it? For example, when African Americans were being repressed in the United States, the Civil Rights Movement was created, and immense change was affected. Maybe the Native Americans need to have their own version of the Civil Rights Movement, albeit a different context.

If they were to do so, it may be helpful to get the word out there. To be honest, I did not know that Native Americans lived in such squalor prior to this class. In school, we did not talk about it. We learned about the first Native Americans that settlers had come into contact with and those that were famous. But other than that, we spent zero time on the state of Native Americans today. Maybe if it was brought to the forefront, there would be a better chance of some sort of change occurring.

First off, I would like to say that I really enjoyed having Jasiri X come in to our class and speak to us about some of the really controversial issues of which we had only just been scraping the surface in class. I thought it was great that he and his friend (whose name seems to escape me at this moment) were doing their best to try to pump up the class, and they were really attempting to get some deep and thoughtful answers out of the students. Using rap and hip-hop was a very interesting and intriguing platform to base a lecture around. It seemed to me to be a good way to keep the whole class interested because it was different from a regular lecture. I also appreciated the fact that they were really trying to get every different viewpoint heard, even if it was one that they did not necessarily agree with themselves.

However, as interesting and thought provoking as this lecture was, I have to say that I was not really able to relate to much of it, if any of it at all. There was on part of the “lecture” that he discussed the Occupy movement with the class (accompanied by one of his original songs). This was the only part that I could at least somewhat relate to because it was not necessarily race-based. However, even then I did not know much about the Occupy movement, so it was still somewhat difficult to directly relate to it. Aside from that portion of the class, most of it seemed to come across as a lecture that focused solely on blacks, which is all well and good, but that did really make it difficult as a white person to really be able to relate to the things Jasiri X was saying.

It also seemed like a lot of white people had very strong reactions to what he was saying throughout the lecture. While not many people spoke up, let alone “stood up” to him on some of his apparent accusations, I learned that many people were kind of outraged, and they channeled that angry via Twitter. There were plenty of comments that said like they felt that Jasiri X was “white bashing.” I guess I would not go as far as to call it white bashing, but I did think that there were definitely some better ways that he could have phrased some of the things he said. By pointing fingers at the white people and referring to us as “you people,” I really think that fired a lot of people up. I find that when anyone is discussing the slave trade, it often is said that all of the whites were responsible. But I think people forget that it was not ALL of the whites. I would ask not to be generalized in that, because it can be hurtful when it seems like the blame is being put on me for something that happened so long ago and that I clearly had nothing to do with. And I ask that out of respect. The same respect I would have for any other person that keeps me from making broad generalizations about any one group of people. I am even the person that stands up to other people who do make those generalizations. So I do not appreciate it when it is done to me. That’s all.

We have been talking a lot about affirmative action in class lately. This is kind of embarrassing to admit, but to be honest I did not really have a great understanding or grasp on what it was before this class. It was never discussed in my family or among my friends, maybe because I am white. But now that we have spent a decent amount of time discussing it in class and used several examples, I now have a definite opinion on the matter. So based on this question that was asked, I think that there is a definite difference between affirmative action and nepotism.

I definitely do not agree with affirmative action programs. I think that they are unfair in and of themselves. In order to promote fairness, they have to be unfair. I do not believe that anyone should be able to get a job or a promotion or entrance in to a college or even a scholarship just because he or she is black or Latino/a or Arab or even because she is a woman. The color of a person’s skin or a person’s gender is by no means any accurate indicator as to whether he or she truly deserves what ever the benefit may be that affirmative action is more than willing to just give away to him or her.

While affirmative action and nepotism are similar in nature, there is one highly distinct difference, the underlying reason behind the specific hand out that may be being given. Affirmative action is willing to give hand outs to people strictly based on color of skin or gender. However, nepotism is strictly based on relationships. The difference that I am trying to make a point of here is that affirmative cannot be utilized by every single group and person in the country. Nepotism, on the hand, can. People of all ages, colors, genders and religions can partake in nepotism. Therefore, while neither is necessarily “fair”, nepotism is at least fair on the front that it leaves no person out of being able to utilize it.

So to specifically answer the question at hand, yes, I would still take a hand out under the guise of nepotism, even though I am against affirmative action. This is because of the distinct difference that I just mentioned. I think that because everyone can partake in the act of nepotism, then I cannot necessarily feel guilty about being a receiver of the benefits of it. All my life, I have been told that it is all about the connections. This lesson has been especially poignant in college. If it is all about the connections, then why wouldn’t I take advantage of those connections that I have? Herein lies the true difference between the two.

I think this is a very good question to ask. While this class focuses on racial issues, it also manages to bring up several other very controversial topics, such as gender issues for example, as seen by some comments that were made in class.

By no means do I agree with the fact, or better yet I should say the statement, that because women do not discuss their periods in open forums of mixed company, i.e. men and women, that they are not truly free. There are several inaccurate points in this statement that was made by Sam in class.

First off, I know many women that do openly discuss their periods. The difference is that it is not necessarily in mixed company. In fact, my friends and I talk about our periods to each other all the time. We have even discussed it in front of and with our male friends before.

Secondly, there are a lot of aspects involved with a woman’s period, and honestly, not all of them are “dinner table talk” worthy. I would find it highly inappropriate and quite frankly disgusting if someone were to start discussing taking a shit. That is another natural process, just like a woman’s period, but I do not want to talk about that with other people. It is no different for a woman discussing her period, at least in my eyes.

Thirdly, I know a lot of men that are highly grossed out by discussing that with women. Maybe we women are just being courteous about our audience. Not everyone wants to talk about that. So why would you have a conversation about something that no one wanted to talk about? You wouldn’t.

And lastly, is there not freedom in choice? Women have the choice as to whether they want to discuss their periods with other people or not. By choosing not to talk about it, there is freedom in that choice. Even if there were women in the classroom that had their periods and did not raise their hands, by choosing not to raise their hands, they are demonstrating freedom, whether Sam viewed it that way or not.

I understand what Sam was trying to accomplish in making this point, but really it seemed like he did not really think about it before he made his point. Given that there are so many inaccurate aspects about it, he maybe could have given it more thought before making such a blanket statement about women’s freedom. We have come so far from the oppression that used to rule us. Period discussion cannot be included in that oppression. If I wanted to openly discuss my period with others, I would, and even do sometimes. So I resent that statement if that is really what Sam believes to be true.

In order to adequately answer this question, I have to give some background on my own faith to explain how my views and opinions on faith have been somewhat altered due to this lecture.
My siblings and I were raised Catholic. Both of my parents are Catholic, their parents are Catholic and I’m sure even their parents are Catholic. So there was never really any question as to what I should believe in as far as death and the afterlife are concerned. I was taught to believe that there is a place called heaven, where God and Jesus sit and judge the living and the dead. I was taught that my judgment day would come eventually, as does everyone’s. I was taught that there is a place called hell. I was taught that if I do the “right” things, I would be able to avoid said place. Now as I got older, I had a more and more difficult time believing in everything I had been taught as a child, in regards to faith that is. I would describe my current religious views as agnostic now. I am not a full-blown atheist, but there certainly are plenty of aspects of faith and religion in which I do not believe.
So given my “religious” background and current views and beliefs, I do have to say that this lecture was fairly life-altering. Now the way I interpreted the question, the person asking it seemed to have meant more in a negative sense of having your faith shaken. I have actually moved in the opposite direction. I believe I have more faith, or at least believe in my prior faith more now than I have in a very long time. I tend to be a skeptic with most things, religion in particular, even with my upbringing. But this was one thing that I found a hard time finding something to specifically criticize, which is strange because really it should be the opposite. I should think that the whole thing was a bunch of bullshit. I consider myself a very rational and logical thinker. In order for me to believe something, there has to be some sort of quantifiable proof. How can you argue with science and something that has irrefutably been proven? Somehow, life after death is now one of those things that can be turned into some sort of quantifiable proof, for some people that is. I found that the research was really convincing, up until I saw that 80-90% of people reported not remembering anything. That is one thing about all of this that made me question how much stock we can really put in these findings. But I must say, that even though only 10-20% could report these “feelings”, I still found it convincing, given my lack of faith, that there could be something past death.

When I saw the actual data in class about which races were the “most successful” economically speaking, I can’t say I was surprised, more for the fact that I had heard these stereotypes before. But when Sam asked us how we would present this information to our families, like if we were sit down at the dinner table and show them the numbers, I knew not only what I my story would be, but also what other members in my family would have to say about the data. So I will first say what my story would be, then go through some of my family members.
If I had to explain to my family that some races tend to be better off economically than others, I would chalk it up to one thing. I think it is strictly a matter of choices. I honestly do not believe that genetics play into it at all. In my opinion, everyone has the same capability to achieve just as much as any other person. Maybe stereotyping plays into it somewhat. In the sense, for example, if some black people have grown up hearing that they will not amount to as much as a white person will, the idea sticks with them so they do not apply themselves as much, taking that stereotype for fact. But ultimately, I think it is entirely up to the person him/herself. If there happens to be a pattern in this nature, then that could be people reading into it too much or mere coincidence. Personal choices are what make up your life. Granted, some do have to try harder than others given upbringing, etc., but that does not mean that they can’t eventually be in the same place as an extremely successful person.
Now if my grandma were to look at the data, her story would be different. She would say something like, “Well, it’s because they’re black or Mexican or whatever their race may be.” She buys into the stereotyping to the extent of severe close-mindedness when it comes to race.
My mom would probably take a genetic approach. Being a registered nurse, she puts a lot of stock in biology. So I could easily see her arguing for the genetic aspect that Sam had talked about in class. “Biology does not lie,” would be something that she would say regarding the topic and data.
However, my older sister is also in the medical field, or about to be, that is, and I am fairly certain that she would agree with me over my mom, in that everyone’s lives are the products of their own choices.
The point of me relaying what my family members’ opinions would be in addition to my own opinion is to say that really there is an argument for every side it, genetics, socio-psycho, strictly sociological. And who is to say that any one answer is right? Everyone will have different opinions on it, but I think it is impossible to say what the true answer is.

Personally, I think the difference between a man complimenting a man and a woman complimenting a woman is actually nothing, but people make it a much bigger deal than it needs to be. At least, in my opinion, men make it a much bigger deal than it actually is, the men that I know, that is.

For women, it is pretty much common nature to compliment other women. It is something that my friends and I do all the time. I think we all realize that the compliments would be much appreciated if it were us who were receiving them, so we dish them out. If one of us sees the other is looking good that day, we are not afraid to tell her so. We know it makes her feel good, so why not? This happens especially when we are all getting ready to go somewhere together. I guess it is much more common to compliment someone when he/she is dressed up and ready to go somewhere. There is never any fear of coming across as lesbian when we compliment each other, at least for me there is not. That is actually something we have never talked about; it just came naturally.

But when it comes to men, the entire game changes. I think I only know one man who is comfortable enough with complimenting another man. Personally, I think it all comes down to not being perceived as being attracted to the man to whom they are giving the compliment. I think there is such an innate fear in many of them as being seen as possibly being gay. But I think that is bullshit. If you are my friend, then I know you. I know you are attracted to women, not to men. So what is the issue with paying another man a compliment? I do not think anyone would actually think you are gay because you told another guy he was looking good. I fairly certain no one thinks I am a lesbian because I often tell my female friends they are looking good.

In fact, my girl friends and I have even asked what our guy friends about their opinion regarding another man, and most of the time they just refuse to answer. When we ask them why they can’t just comment, their response is that it is just “weird” to talk about another guy’s appearance. Maybe it is because they never before, so it would be odd to do so now. But I do think it all comes back down to the perception. If they could get past the fact that 1.) other people’s opinions are not the end-all-be-all and 2.) complimenting another man does not make you gay, then maybe they would be able to do so comfortably. But I do not see that changing anytime soon.

I have many friends that have struggled or are struggling with the issues that were mentioned in class the other day. And many of them have come to me for advice regarding their problems. I have even had people that I had barely spoken to before ask me for help. However, with all the people that I have spoken to and have helped (or at least that I hope I have helped), I have never once brought up the fact that their struggles could somehow have some sort of sociological factors tied to them. Before this class, I had never thought of that before.
Although, I have to say that I felt as though Sam was attributing all these extremely serious issues to sociology. It seemed that he was saying that the sole reason anyone had these problems, eating disorders, cutting, depression, struggling with suicide, could be found in sociology. While I did find it interesting because it was definitely something that I had never considered prior to class, I have to disagree with Sam, at least with the impression that I got, which was that the main reason these problems existed was because of sociology. I think that everyone has different experiences, and it is impossible to make such a broad generalization about the source of the problem. Yes, I understand that it is a big world and there are many people and that aspects of some people’s situations may overlap, but I do not think that it is fair to attribute it all to that. Now, I obviously could be misinterpreting Sam’s intentions and message, but that is what I took out of it.
With that being said, when I speak to anyone about their personal troubles from now on, I will probably stick to the same “tactics” that I have used in the past. Although, I may now bring up the sociological factor as one aspect because I agree that it may have some standing in the matter, but I will not emphasize it. And if I do bring it up, I would have to research it first. If I am going to bring up something related to statistics, I had better know what I am talking about before I go around throwing out statements like, “Kids from divorces are ___ times more likely to have depression.” It has been my experience that it is important to make the person with the issue, particularly those fighting depression and cutting, feel that he/she is an individual. By grouping them with everyone else, it could make him/her feel more anonymous that he/she did to begin with. But most importantly, I think it is key to remind him/her that there are people who care and who want to help. No one wants to see someone struggling with something as difficult as depression or cutting.