en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/2389970 Comments by sam5851 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2013/04/09/voices-from-the-classroom-298/#IDComment619469729 The question that was posed to females for this blog is very interesting. As a female, when we were talking in class about the statistics that basically say that by and large women do not actually end up having an orgasm as often during sexual interactions as men do, this concept hit home. But the bigger question related to this, the one that was posed in this video, is why women do not speak as openly about this. Furthermore, why is it that the majority of people do not know these statistics? Because I have been sexually active for about five years now, I definitely have had many experiences with this situation. I find now that I do not find myself facing this problem personally as often as in the past because I am in a long term serious relationship with someone that I truly love. Therefore, this means that this person and I do not only have experience with each other, but most importantly, we both care that both of us ends up satisfied after a sexual interaction, including him caring about that for me. However, in many of the past experiences that I have, the situation was definitely not the same. From my own experiences, the reason the situation where women do not end up having an orgasm as often as men during sex, I have come to a few conclusions as to why this might be. For one, as we were discussing about in class, we currently live in a male-centered world. Therefore, this generally translates through to the bedroom as well (I am talking about heterosexual interactions here, as I do not have personal experience in other types). As men generally have some sort of higher control during interactions, including in sex, if a man is not specifically concerned with whether or not the woman is also satisfied, he will generally end the sexual interaction when he is satisfied, whether or not the woman has been satisfied yet also. This situation develops and is reinforced even more so because of the same concept. Because men in general in some sense have been taught that they should have the upper hand in most contexts, a lot of women probably do not feel as inclined to speak about the fact that they are not satisfied, and probably because of the same reason, often do not even think about it. Furthermore, we do not hear about these statistics very often because again of this same exact reason. It all just gets reinforced. If women are given more empowerment in our society in general, I believe that the rate of both sexes having an orgasm during interactions will increase greatly. Mon, 15 Apr 2013 02:41:52 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2013/04/09/voices-from-the-classroom-298/#IDComment619469729 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2013/03/28/voices-from-the-classroom-284/#IDComment608585526 I think that this question is a really important one for all of us to think about in general. I personally have a tendency to always want to figure out how to make change when I learn about some situation that is not right, especially ones in which such change really needs to occur as soon as possible. I know exactly what this girl is talking about. I think it is almost instinctive of the majority of people that begin to understand the magnitude of a dire situation to almost immediately begin to rationalize the situation or to figure out some way that the situation can be helped. However, I think that what Sam was trying to get us to understand the other day in lecture was that it is important to not just jump to trying to solve a problem that we do not yet fully understand. From my experiences even that I’ve had so far, especially in the activism realm, I have begun to also see that it is actually most effective to learn and understand as much as possible first, and not just immediately delve into solving a problem. Otherwise, some very counterproductive consequences can be likely to occur. For example, when I was listening to this question I immediately thought back to an experience that I had while in the Dominican Republic over this past winter break. One of the parts of my trip that truly impacted the most was the day that I was at the border of Haiti, a town called El Jabon. Despite the very bad ties between the Dominican Republic and Haiti, the Dominican Republic opens the doors to its border once a week for a market that is on a sort of free grounds that both Dominicans and Haitians can sell their goods at. Going to this market was actually quite risky, so I wasn’t even allowed to take any belongings with me to be able to take pictures to try to convey what I saw to others back home. Anyways, what I saw completely blew my mind to the point that I am still traumatized. It is so different from reading about or watching a documentary about people living in the worst of conditions that humanity knows than actually seeing it in real life. And that’s what I saw. I saw people living in absolute poverty, trying to sell pieces of garbage and unneeded donations to get an equivalent of five cents. People begging for food and water. I will never forget seeing a disabled man that literally did not have an eye ball in one of his sockets get pushed around by the Dominican border patrol men. Anyways, what this story is relevant to this question by is that when our group met for dinner that night, we all were at a loss for words and were trying to somehow take in what we just saw. Our friends that had traveled with us from a Dominican union were with us. One of my friends that went on the trip with me asked the Dominican unionists what we could do to help the Haitians that we just saw. To his surprise, he got a quite different reaction than what he probably thought was coming. A man from the Alta Gracia union got almost angry. He replied by saying that we should not be having this conversation here if we really wanted to help. It is no good figuring out what is good for someone else. If you truly want to help someone, not only do it in solidarity with them, but most importantly, you need to ask them personally what they need. He talked about how part of the problem on their island is that non-profits come in and just give out houses or shoes to random people without asking who needed what. He said that is why we saw so many donated goods for sale at the market that day. If someone is in poverty and already has a pair of shoes, don’t give them more shoes, give them a house. You get the idea. This was one of the biggest learning experiences I’ve had yet so far. Mon, 1 Apr 2013 02:39:05 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2013/03/28/voices-from-the-classroom-284/#IDComment608585526 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2013/03/21/voices-from-the-classroom-276/#IDComment603317783 In response to the blog post that questions whether or not affirmative action brings any negativity to the quality of the work done in a particular job due to the possibility that a person that is more qualified for the job but does not receive affirmative action to receive it or even gets disqualified for the job due to another person receiving it due to affirmative action, I believe that perhaps it could have such an effect in the short term, but that it probably has more of a positive effect in the long term. I say this because I understand that in the short term and at initial glance at the situation it would seem that the best qualified person should always receive a position, regardless of any other factor. In a perfect society, this would occur and no extra steps would have to be taken in order to ensure that it does. However, from what we have been learning about in class, it is clear that we do not have a truly equal opportunity society currently. For example, last week Sam talked about a study that occurred in which as many factors were controlled for as possible and that the only difference between the participants in the study was that one person was white while the other person was black. It was an overwhelming amount of white people that were always called back more than the black people, as well as white applicants being more likely to receive a higher position offer than black applicants were. This is a perfect example of the fact that there is so much bias in many employers as to who they higher based on race, that there must be some sort of action taken to take steps toward ending this racism in the hiring of people in the workforce. I am not completely certain as to whether or not affirmative action is the best solution. However, I can’t think of any other situation that would work any better as of yet, at least that fits the state that our society is in currently. I do understand that affirmative action not only continues discrimination by giving groups of people not receiving affirmative action a biased lesser chance of being chosen for a particular position. However, it is clear that women, non-white people, lower class individuals, non-heterosexual people, and many more groups are routinely discriminated against in each segment of life that is required to be able to achieve to reach most jobs such as education, health access, skill sets, etc. Therefore, white, male, heterosexual, upper-class individuals are routinely receiving affirmative action. Do we see much action being taken place to avoid nepotism for jobs given to friends and family members who are less qualified? The answer is obviously no. Before we can find answers to that, and continue discriminating against people in so many other realms, there is no room for such great criticism of any type of affirmative action for individuals who have been discriminated against and persecuted for such a large portion of human history. Sun, 24 Mar 2013 21:49:49 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2013/03/21/voices-from-the-classroom-276/#IDComment603317783 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2013/03/16/voices-from-the-classroom-272/#IDComment598171845 Currently, the most often used measure of well-being in a country is usually the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). It first came into use during World War II and its intended use is far from what it supposedly infers about a nation today. What the Gross Domestic Product actually measures is the amount of goods and services that are bought and sold in an area. Yes, this may give one insight on how consumerism is fairing in a given place and how much money is being shifted back and forth between different sectors of a society, but by no means does it actually tell the real level of well-being of the people in the area. For instance, GDP will go up if there is a lot of spending on goods and services that are linked to harm, despair, and unhealthiness. An example of this is spending on health care in the United States. Americans spend an overwhelmingly enormous amount of money on healthcare annually because of the overall low level of health of people in the nation. This obviously is a negative influence on the well-being of Americans yet GDP will go up because of this spending, which again, supposedly if the GDP goes up, the area’s well-being is thought to be at a higher level. Furthermore, GDP does not account for the economic inequality in the area. Another fallback of GDP is that it completely voids activities in which money is not exchanged from being thought to add to prosperity. Such activities include volunteer work and the care of those that cannot take care of themselves (children and elderly). These deeds are vital to keeping up the well-being of a society yet the use of GDP intends to have more activities in which money is spent occur instead. Otherwise, according to the GDP, if there were more activities in which money is not used, the economy would decline. However, there are other indicators of well-being besides GDP. One of which is the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI). This measure includes many other aspects of well-being that the GDP ignores and then compares the benefits to the costs of the economic activity taking place. This is obviously a much more accurate measure of well-being than the GDP. There is yet another indicator of well-being other than the GDP available. It is called Gross National Happiness (GNH). This is the measure that the country of Bhutan uses. This measure incorporates the level of happiness of the people, as in this view, happiness is considered extremely valuable and definitely directly linked to the well-being of the society. Mon, 18 Mar 2013 04:01:19 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2013/03/16/voices-from-the-classroom-272/#IDComment598171845 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2013/03/01/voices-from-the-classroom-264/#IDComment591953647 In regards to the question of why people censor themselves, if it is either out of a sign of respect or out of fear, I believe that it is wrong to generalize as if it is completely one way or the other, or even not any other option of influence. I’m not sure if the man asking this question is asking about why people censor themselves in general, or if he is specifically asking why white people censor themselves around people of other races. Either way, individuals censor themselves for many different reasons, and I’m sure that this censoring of speech, whether it is an individual characteristic or not, also differs from situation to situation and especially with who the specific individuals are that are supposedly the indirect cause of someone censoring themselves. If it is that the person asking this question is asking about why white people censor themselves around people of other races specifically, I can give an answer from my perspective that may help, considering that despite a mixture of many different ethnic groups in my own ethnic background, the racial category that I am almost always put into is “white”. Although over the past several years I have attempted and continue to try to be more and more conscious of the privilege that I receive due to my racial categorization and to not discriminate against anyone, especially on the basis of race, even today I find myself sometimes acting differently around people of other races, despite my diligent efforts. For example, I believe due to the fact that I am actually becoming more aware of how pretty much the rest of the world’s population views and thinks about most white people when generalizing about them as well as the events in history in which white people have done an enormous amount of atrocities against other races ranging from forced sterilization to genocide to general exploitation, I think that there must be a part of me that is scared that although I do a lot of social justice work to eradicate such atrocities from our society, that people of other races that have a well justified preconception of how generalized white people are, that they will think badly of me in one way or another, just due to the fact that I am white. This notion has probably been reinforced in me due to actual experiences with this in my high school where about half of the student population was white and the other black. Even though I have always been extremely openly against racism in any form, I often would end up in situations in which certain individuals in my school that were black treated me differently, and even badly in which they only justified it by saying it was because I was white. A specific example of this that one of my good friends who is also white had experienced in our high school was when a black boy told her that he would love to hang her from a tree “because of what her ancestors did to his people”. Because I saw the absurdity in these behaviors then, I believe that may be a huge influence in why I advocate so much for equality that goes much further than racial equality through collective liberation. Mon, 11 Mar 2013 02:48:24 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2013/03/01/voices-from-the-classroom-264/#IDComment591953647 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2013/02/07/voices-from-the-classroom-243/#IDComment568240425 In regards to being for or against joining the military, I think that the issue is so complex and that there are so many positives and negatives to both sides of it, that in terms of the current situation that our world society is in, there cannot be one straightforward answer. For instance, when looking at the issue very simply at the macro level, one cannot just say that the United States could function and sustain itself as a nation (and keep the residents within the nation safe) without a military at this point in time. This is because as far as defense, there are other nations and groups of people throughout the world that would jump at the chance to attack the country of the United States or even just people living within it. Because of the hostility, misunderstanding, and want for retaliation that now exists within groups of people that lead them to wish to hurt the United States, at this moment the United States needs to have a military, solely speaking in terms of the need for defense. This view can even be expanded farther in other realms of defense, such as protecting innocent people in terrible situations in other parts of the world. If the United States is to accept the notion that it should help other people that are not citizens of the United States in other countries, it is doing so under the umbrella of defense of allies. Therefore, the point that there is a need for a military to satisfy defense standards is extended. However, there also is a very ugly side of being part of a military, regardless of for what nation or group of people. If a person decides to belong to a military, despite what good intentions one might have (for protecting loved ones, for freedom, etc.), such a person makes a choice that he or she will make certain sacrifices during the fight with the military. In my own personal opinion, I think it is not only okay, but necessary for an individual to make a decision regarding a potential sacrifice of his or her own life. However, all too often (in fact I really can’t think of any examples in which this doesn’t happen within a military), individuals signing on to a military also make a decision that they are willing to sacrifice some level of well-being of other individuals. This may come in the form of physical harm (including death), psychological harm, loss of freedom, or impingement on personal rights. Overall, this issue is extremely complex and I am still trying to figure out what my opinion is on it. There are valid points to each side of the argument. I have very good friends with very good intentions that have joined the military. I once described myself as a pacifist. All I know is that there is way too much for me to still learn before I could even start to think that I may have a good understanding of the rightness and wrongness of joining the military. Mon, 11 Feb 2013 00:51:44 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2013/02/07/voices-from-the-classroom-243/#IDComment568240425 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2013/01/23/voices-from-the-classroom-232/#IDComment555561961 Although I personally do not feel it is logical for people to ultimately feel such a way about their children marrying an atheist, I was not surprised at the statistics shown to us in class that show atheists as the group Americans wish their children to marry least. Atheism is currently risky to be involved in within our society. Not as much as in the past, but obviously it is still greatly stigmatized. A large portion of individuals in our society grew up learning values from their parents that were tied to religions that basically enforced ideals stating that “rejecting” that there is a god will send them directly to hell, or whatever version of ultimate doom that the religion believes in. This obviously causes a ton of fear in individuals learning this type of mentality. It is no wonder that since the majority of people in this country have this type of mindset, that they would therefore have a fear of those that firmly do not believe that there is an existence of a god, as in the view of what most people in our society are taught, those that have such a belief are doomed. If these people are doomed, it is also not a surprise that people believing that atheists are doomed would not want their children to marry them, as they probably also have a fear that such a terrible fate would also be transferred to the atheist’s family (their children and the couple’s children) as well. I think that this unwillingness of so many people in this country to have their children marry an atheist just comes down to a fundamental fear for their children’s safety, which is good that they want the best life possible for their children. However, from everything that I have learned so far, I have come to the conclusion that this fear is most likely irrational. I am actually agnostic (meaning that I believe at this point in my life, that I do not have any way to actually know for certain whether there is a god or not, that I am indeed a spiritual person, but do not adhere to any organized religion), so I obviously acknowledge that I cannot definitely know for sure that their fear is irrational (meaning that an atheist is not doomed to a hell or something of the like and that the act of their children marrying an atheist will also not doom their children), but I also acknowledge that I have not learned or experienced anything that actually supports that their fear is rational. Therefore, to answer the question posed in this video, I do not think Atheism is a bad thing at all. It is not any worse of a belief of what the purpose of existence is than Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or Hinduism. It has for much of the recent past been a belief system on the fringes of our society, so most people are not very aware of what it actually is. The fear of the unknown, and the acts people are willing to take in reaction to such a fear, has always been a plague of negativity and inequality in our society. Sun, 27 Jan 2013 20:27:30 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2013/01/23/voices-from-the-classroom-232/#IDComment555561961 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2013/01/18/voices-from-the-classroom-228/#IDComment549598024 Although I had already previously known that a lot of people in the United States for some reason believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim, rather than a Christian, the statistics that were shown to us in class regarding the issue still caught me off guard. For one, I had definitely not thought that such a huge number of people think this way. I think it was almost thirty percent of people believe that the President is a Muslim. Furthermore, I think it is incredible that if such a high number of people in the country were to think this at any time that this high percentage of people believing that Barack Obama is a Muslim would have existed earlier in Obama’s presidency. In fact, this might have been the case, but regardless, I think it is extremely interesting, perhaps even appalling, that such an enormous amount of people in this country are so uninformed about what is going on in the United States that they do not even know what the religion of the President is. Although in my own opinion, I do not think that a person’s religious affiliation should be of such a high importance regarding analyzing a presidency, considering that religion (in particular, Christianity) is so intertwined with political beliefs for so many people in this country (although we supposedly have a separation of church and state), I can see why a religious affiliation of the President of the United States could be such a big deal. Furthermore, I understand that most likely a large amount of the influence that is guiding such a large amount of people to believe that Barack Obama is not only not a Christian, but that he is supposedly a Muslim, comes from a group of people wishing to discredit the President. An obvious proponent of doing so is the Fox news channel. Even though I know myself that it is not only extremely wrong, but also incredibly unintelligent, to have such negative associations with the religion of Islam in the first place, it is quite apparent that such an association currently exists in the United States. Being coupled with the fact that the President’s name is similar to common names associated with the religion of Islam which makes it even easier for these people to make a link between Islam and Barack Obama, it is easy to see why they would choose to try to influence the public to believe that the President is a Muslim. Because of the prejudice against the religion, combined with the fact that we are currently engaged in wars in areas in the world where the main religion is Islam, it is actually a convenient way for someone to try to discredit the President. However, the fact that so many people have fallen for this and continue to do so, is disgusting. Mon, 21 Jan 2013 03:40:28 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2013/01/18/voices-from-the-classroom-228/#IDComment549598024 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/10/27/voices-from-the-classroom-58/#IDComment213640073 When asked how I feel about the fact that white people will most likely become the minority in the United States of America, I do not feel badly about it at all. In fact, I have hardly any emotion associated with that question besides maybe a feel for being inquisitive towards seeing such a dramatic change happening in the country that I live in. This is mainly because I understand that the United States is primarily a country of immigrants. It is a land of people who migrated to it whether willingly or forcefully over hundreds of years from many different parts of the world. Yes, there has been a majority of white people living in this country because so many people migrated from parts of Europe, but that does not change the fact that people have come here from all over the place. I don’t see why I should feel any sort of way about it just because I am white. Perhaps some people of certain races who are outnumbering white people would be thought of to feel a certain way about this situation as well. However, I think it is sensible for no one to feel either good or bad about the fact that white Americans are becoming the minority, but instead to look at the situation in a scholarly way. When one is able to look at the situation in this manner, it is easy to see that there are probably going to be major impacts in our society. This would not occur if there was no feelings toward race to begin with, but unfortunately, as we have obviously been studying in this sociology class, there still are negative feelings associated with the races of different people. I think one of the most obvious so called races that are most likely going to outnumber white people in this country are those of Central or South American origins. Furthermore, one would assume that a huge portion of those people in particular are migrating from the country of Mexico. I personally have no objection to immigration and in fact I believe that it is our right as human beings to be able to move to or to travel to any country or location in the world that we desire to. However, there is a great deal of negative feelings toward Mexicans and other people from Central or South America. I think one of the biggest changes that will come out of the fact that this group is going to outnumber white people in the United States who have been the majority for so long is that these negative feelings will either get much worse or they will start to dissipate completely. Fri, 28 Oct 2011 23:27:35 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/10/27/voices-from-the-classroom-58/#IDComment213640073 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/10/20/voices-from-the-classroom-47/#IDComment210602274 In order for the world to be centered on black supremacy, I think they would have had to do it the same way that white people did: developing metal tools, imperialism, and all that. For it to be possible for the black race to come up in the world like whites did, they would almost have to switch geographical locations. Europe’s climate and natural resources are what supported their clandestine takeover of the world, not the race alone. So, assuming that the African continent had all of the things it would need without sacrificing what makes its people black, there are only a few possible ways they could have gone about it differently. They would have gone to Europe or possibly Asia to capture slaves, superimpose their image onto their religious figures, and developed a justification system with which to support their blatantly inflated egos. Rather than colonizing the Americas, they could have colonized Australia, or maybe Siberia. Actually, considering those two extremes, maybe they would have rather chose America as well. Who knows where they would have gone astray from the path that white people took? Do those parts really matter? Wherever they went, they would have spread disease and killed the natives, created a new country and all, leading the world into an industry and nuclear weapons driven race to the top of the international food chain. So, in short, not much would be different. The only things I believe would change would be the way the world appears to us and the way other people appear to us. For example, with my own skin color being white, I would probably regard those who are tan or have any sort of darker complexion to have the kind of natural beauty and finesse that lighter complexions are considered to have in the real world. It would be shameful to have a small nose, straight hair… Everyone would be getting perms, like in the 70s! Rather than using skin whitening cream, everyone would have a spray tan. February would be white history month, or maybe Oriental history month. Those kinds of things are the things that would change, because they are the only things that really separate different races. As far as the history of the world goes, they could have done a lot of things differently, but I can’t bring myself to believe that there are any inherent personality differences that are caused simply by having different skin and not by the social stigmas that come with it, so who is to say that they really would have? What really separates people is their culture and their looks, their need to survive and adapt, and what they’re willing to do about it. As a result, we would all just switch places with little to no change in the way the world operates. Fri, 21 Oct 2011 18:04:25 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/10/20/voices-from-the-classroom-47/#IDComment210602274 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/10/12/consider-the-issue-of-freedom-vs-determinism/#IDComment207187224 Freedom and determinism are very tricky subjects when it comes to these two girls who have two separate identities, hearts, lungs, minds, but yet are attached to one body. When looking at their situation through the lens of determinism, the lens saying that factors and forces outside one’s control affect the outcomes of one’s opportunities and life in general, it is clear that these girls have certain limitations as to how they can live their own lives as well as what chances they have of doing certain things that individuals that are not conjoined twins may have. Furthermore, it was not either of the girls’ choices to share the same body. It is out of their control and that is determinism. There are so many things that this factor of their lives that neither of them were free to choose in the first place that the girls will be inhibited from doing, or at least to the extent or way that people who have their own separate body from anyone else would have. Several of these were talked about in the video. One of which is what career the girls will have, and whether or not they will even have to have the same career or not. They have to be able to do something in which two people can be around the job as well as pick an environment that both of them agree on. For example, what if one twin wanted to work in fashion while the other wanted to be an accountant? Determinism lies here in which the twin who did not succeed in getting her first choice of a career had forces in her life that determined whether or not she could do the things she wanted to do. If she was not forced to share a body with another person on the other hand, she would be more free to make the choice of career that she wanted without something stopping her from doing so. Another factor that is going to be difficult for the girls that was also brought up in the video is how dating will work as well as becoming a mother or mothers (I am not sure how this part of their body works and whether or not one could tell who the potential mother would be or if it would be both of their’s). They may have limitations in this category because of the body they were born with (but did not choose of course) whether it be from physical hindrances biologically, prejudices from other people, or fighting between the two girls over their body or time to be with their respective partners. Aside from determinism, other people could say that these girls are still free to make their own choices. I can see how this could be thought but I believe that these girls have a lot of limitations that are obviously not their own fault so I think determinism is more relevant here. Fri, 14 Oct 2011 00:19:37 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/10/12/consider-the-issue-of-freedom-vs-determinism/#IDComment207187224 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/10/06/voices-from-the-classroom-37/#IDComment204423828 In a world in which life was centered around women, I believe there would be less non consensual sex. At first I wasn’t really sure about it, but then I thought about the main reasons why non consensual sex usually happens in our male centered world. For one, the biggest factor in why it is possible for a man to take over a woman and have sex with her that she did not consent to is the fact that the man is the one who has a penis. Whatever sex has the genitalia that has the ability to penetrate the other sex’s genitalia will have the most ability to have non consensual sex with the other sex. It is not common in our world to have women have the ability to rape men because they do not have the genitalia to penetrate men, so even the ability to have non consensual sex with them can be limited to only a few circumstances that it would even be able to work, considering that the woman even had this in mind to do. Furthermore, there lies the factor that in general, the bodies of men and women are built very differently. Men are usually taller with more muscle and women normally are shorter and have less muscle. Therefore, when non consensual sex comes down to whether or not if one is strong enough to take over the other person, it is most likely the male. Even though this in particular would not change just because of a social hierarchy changing, I believe that the rate of men who would even try to take over a woman in this way would drastically go down. Last but not least, as we have learned, especially in Sam and Lorrie’s talk on Tuesday, our current society leads most women to try to fill the role that men would like them to fill, instead of trying to satisfy their own needs first and foremost. Now, if our society changed to a women centered world, this would be the opposite. Next, with going along with what I first said about how non consensual sex usually is more likely to happen by a man since men have the genitalia for penetration and women do not, now the dominant sex would not have the penetration genitalia anymore. The lower sex would have the penetration genitalia and I believe that it would be less likely that people of the lower sex would try to overpower the higher sex. Of course, non consensual sex would not be completely eradicated, but I believe there would be a significant drop in the number of people getting raped and forced into having sex if our society was no longer a male dominated society, but had changed into a society that is centered around women instead. Fri, 7 Oct 2011 16:35:51 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/10/06/voices-from-the-classroom-37/#IDComment204423828 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/09/27/voices-from-the-classroom-26/#IDComment201521554 (Please disregard the post from "shheeellllby", I didn't realize I was logged in to WordPress which I have to use for a blog for another class) The question as to what stereotypes of races other than my own do I not believe in can be pretty much summed up really easily. The answer is all of them. I absolutely hate stereotypes. They make people become closed minded and hinder those who hold them from really experiencing the world and furthermore, from meeting amazing people that may be different from them. Of course, I am subject to occasionally finding myself stereotyping someone for little things, considering I grew up in a world in which stereotypes were all around me, but I honestly try to not do so as much as possible, and this seems to be getting easier as I get older. But I suppose I should answer the actual question of which stereotypes of races other than my own in particular do I not believe in. Considering there are thousands, maybe even millions or more of stereotypes linked to races, and the fact that I do not believe in any of them, I guess I should just focus on a few that really irritate me the most. My elementary through high schools that I attended had an almost equal proportion of white and African American students. Because I was surrounded by students of this race and also because the town I grew up in was home to many people that hold racist or prejudiced beliefs, I have hear many stereotypes associated with the African American race. One of which is that “all black people are ghetto.” Defining what “ghetto” is can be pretty difficult in itself, but I’m sure most of us at least have some idea of what this is meant to imply. First of all, I knew almost just as many white people as African Americans that went to my school that would fall under this category. Second of all, I knew and know so many African American people that are nowhere close to being “ghetto.” I think it is completely ridiculous that people continue to use this stereotype. Another stereotype linked to this race is that “all black people have something against white people because of the terrible things white peoples’ ancestors did in the past.” This is also pretty ridiculous. I have to admit that I have came across a few people here and there that do hold this grudge, but on the other hand, there are so many people of the African American race that do not think this at all. Basically, I have found that stereotypes linked to race are completely absurd. Fri, 30 Sep 2011 23:46:17 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/09/27/voices-from-the-classroom-26/#IDComment201521554 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/09/27/voices-from-the-classroom-26/#IDComment201521008 (Please disregard the post from "shheeellllby", I didn't realize I was logged in to WordPress which I have to use for a blog for another class) The question as to what stereotypes of races other than my own do I not believe in can be pretty much summed up really easily. The answer is all of them. I absolutely hate stereotypes. They make people become closed minded and hinder those who hold them from really experiencing the world and furthermore, from meeting amazing people that may be different from them. Of course, I am subject to occasionally finding myself stereotyping someone for little things, considering I grew up in a world in which stereotypes were all around me, but I honestly try to not do so as much as possible, and this seems to be getting easier as I get older. Fri, 30 Sep 2011 23:44:17 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/09/27/voices-from-the-classroom-26/#IDComment201521008 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/09/13/voices-from-the-classroom-10/#IDComment193786784 Part IV: Basically, what I am trying to say, is that I believe some accents are attractive and others unattractive because of stereotypes that are associated with the people who normally speak that way. I’m sure that if French people had a stereotype associated with them such as that regarding southern Americans, the French accent would not be felt about the same way. In my opinion, it is all very stupid but that is the way it currently is. Hopefully as people become more educated, these stereotypes will start to disappear. Thu, 15 Sep 2011 19:39:45 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/09/13/voices-from-the-classroom-10/#IDComment193786784 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/09/13/voices-from-the-classroom-10/#IDComment193786715 Part III: But not all people who speak French are models from Paris wearing the newest, and in my opinion, most ridiculous, fashions, nor are they all stuck-up, romantic, nor do they all smoke expensive cigarettes. But that is the feeling a lot of Americans get when they hear a French accent. I mean I’m not sure if this feeling is attractive or unattractive to most people, I know many people that feel differently about it, but its a typical stereotype associated with the accent, nonetheless. Now, what does a typical American think when they hear a Chinese accent? It is definitely not the same as what they feel when they hear a French accent. A lot of times, people think about the mass immigration to the United States and they definitely aren’t associating it with wealth (usually). Thu, 15 Sep 2011 19:39:30 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/09/13/voices-from-the-classroom-10/#IDComment193786715 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/09/13/voices-from-the-classroom-10/#IDComment193786583 Part II: Furthermore, although there are many accents within the United States, it seems like very strong southern accents tend to be regarded as the most inferior accent to all other accents in the country. It is common to hear people automatically associate southern accents with “hillbillys”. Everyone knows that this is not true, and in fact I am sure there is a large amount of people that are not from the south that would fit the typical stereotype of a “hillbilly”. Furthermore, the stereotyping as well as the fluctuation of attractiveness between different accents is not only associated with accents within the United States, but also with international accents as well. What does a typical American think of when they hear a French accent. From my own observations, I believe most people would think of superiority, being very proper, and rich people, for a lack of a better way to describe it. Thu, 15 Sep 2011 19:39:08 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/09/13/voices-from-the-classroom-10/#IDComment193786583 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/09/13/voices-from-the-classroom-10/#IDComment193786457 Part I: One question that I have always wondered what the answer regarding it was is why people find some accents attractive while they find other accents unattractive. For example, from my observations, I have noticed that a lot of Americans find accents within the United States, their own country, to have certain prejudices associated with particular accents. Although there is some differences between opinions, it seems that north eastern accents tend to be regarded as superior to all other accents in the United States. I once watched a video in another sociology class last year that brought up the fact that when you receive automated messages from different companies, voicemails, etc. you always hear a north eastern accent. Imagine how strange it would be to call a person and hear a strong southern accent. It would be because you never hear someone with an accent other than north eastern accents in that realm of communication. Thu, 15 Sep 2011 19:38:47 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/09/13/voices-from-the-classroom-10/#IDComment193786457 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/19/what-americans-fear/#IDComment144652729 I think that anyone who watches this video, despite their religious identification would definitely feel at least some degree of fear. The video displays people that distribute terror and hate to others, regardless of the fact that it is coming from Muslim extremists who are wishing to dominate and probably exterminate anyone who disagrees with them or gets in their way of jihad, of course, especially Americans. I really want to know why Muslim extremists such as the one shown in this video hate Americans so much, when there are many other places in the world that the civilians within state borders are not predominately Muslims. Anyways, I took a World Religions class last semester and I learned about how Islam is actually a very peaceful religion. It is the terrorists like the ones in this video that misinterpret the religious text, the Qu’ran, that are so hateful towards others. It is important to remember that there are people such as these Muslim extremists that also misinterpret (well I guess any religious text can be interpreted in any way, but still) what their religion really stands for. For example, the Ku Klux Klan in America is composed of Christians but hate others that are ethnically or religiously different from themselves. Christianity was not meant to be a terrorizing religion, either. I do not know of any in particular, personally, but I am sure each religion has some sort of a small portion of its members that go radical and turn hateful to others that do not follow their particular religion. Besides the fact that there really are people out there that want to harm and even kill other people in the world, including the people in the video who wish to kill people that do not follow the Islamic religion (especially Americans), there is a problem consisting of people categorizing all people of a certain religion in the same context as the small portion of radicals. I, myself, until becoming more educated, got a little frightened as a child after the September 11, 2001 attacks. Everyone must remember that not all Muslims are terrorists, just as not all Christians are members of the Ku Klux Klan. Wed, 20 Apr 2011 23:34:47 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/19/what-americans-fear/#IDComment144652729 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/03/what-a-man-is/#IDComment139929326 This post really hit home for me considering that for the past year I have been in an emotionally abusive relationship with someone that I truly love. Yesterday we actually decided to go on a break until he hopefully will be able to exhibit some of the characteristics that are mentioned here. I have been asking myself the same questions that this lifer is asking. Why should it take someone a substantial event in one’s life in order to appreciate the person that is there and loves them? I’m not saying that this must be the way for everyone. I know there has to be guys out there that are smart enough to see that there is more to a relationship than sex and spending money on a person and that go out of their way to show the person that they are with that they really do care about them and want to be with them. But my experiences have shown that a lot of men (and probably women too) aren’t like this. Looking at the situation sociologically, I think that a lot of men get the ideas that the only benefit to being with a girl is sex, and that it is okay to tell her whatever she wants to hear for that reason, and then after a while, go on to the next girl. What I wonder is what exactly happened since a few decades ago that slowly made chivalry almost a part of the past? I mean, I know that there are many influences that make it a reality, but what exactly made the media and other influences actually exhibit these ideas? Furthermore, I wonder if the sociological strings that make people look at relationships this way will end up having a profound effect on society. Already, I am sure, that a lot of girls do not feel as good about themselves as they should, that they feel like just a commodity, instead of a person that needs to be loved. But I wonder if this may be another reason that people are getting married later and consequently having families later. What other consequences are there for this? Mon, 4 Apr 2011 17:42:19 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/03/what-a-man-is/#IDComment139929326