Observation Journal # 5: "More proud to be an American now than Ever"

While sitting in traffic today, it just so happend that the beat-up white pick-up truck that was ahead of me was going the same direction as I was for quite sometime. To pass the time, I started reading all the bumper stickers and propaganda that this truck was sporting. Along with two support the troops ribbon stickers, a WOKO sticker and a few snowmobile enthusiast ones, there was one that stuck out to me. One that got my attention more so was the one along the fender stating "More Proud to be an American Now than Ever." This made me think about who this individual is, if he supports the president and his military decisions...it appears so.

I have to admit, I found myself making some assumptions and judgements about this man driving this old pick up truck. I wondered to myself, "Is he fully-educated?" "Is this an example of a rally around the flag effect" of this generation? "Is he prejudice against Middle-Eastern people?" How does he feel about 9/11? All of these questions popped into my mind. Although, I have to admit, my making judgements ultimately some stereotypes of the guy driving the truck is not any better. He could be brilliant, he could have 4 degrees, and have valid backing of his "proud to be an american."

Then it makes me think, do you need requirements to be "proud to be an american" and, of course you don't...So above all, sitting waiting for the traffic to move, I noticed some of my own seeded biases. I just kept thinking of the guy from Blue Collar Comedy Tour in that truck. My own biases were present today...which is hard for me to admit, because I like to think of myself as a very non-judgemental person. This person could very well be quite knowledgable about politics and about the world. He could be tolerant, understanding and loving of all people. This experience made me question why this guy driving the truck stirred m up so much. Was it becasue he seemed to fit the stereotypical redneck? Are these just my own biases? This made me look into a bit more my views of others and how they present themselves...to not only those they chose, but onlooking strangers in the rest of the world. What message was the driver trying to send?

Editorial: "Hate Crime Law Necessary Evil"

At what point does the law become invasive to our own civil liberties and freedoms protected to us all as American citizens. No matter what group we identify with, be it racial, sexual orientation, ability, ethnic, socio-economic etc. people have the right to feel, speak and think what they want. It is protected under our constitution.

There is a point where trying to control this thought, that sometimes turns to hate, becomes coercive and controlling. Can we really by laws and authority force people to change their thinking? No, I think not. Although crimes based on hate of a targeted group are wrong, and immoral, we can punish the crime, but not necessarily the thinking. People are entitled to their own beliefs, and sadly these beliefs can manifest into horrible things as we have seen with various hate crimes.

This being said, I initially thought, why would there ever be a second thought about passing a hate crime law? But after reading this, I saw a different perspective on the issue. Since violence and harm in punishable under the law anyway in all 50 states, why do we need to segregate the acts to whom they are committed on. Doing this would only put more of a distance between the "us " and the "them". As we have learned, creating this gap adds fuel to the fire, only spawning more room for discrimination, hate, and difference. Isn't the point that we are all equal, and shouldn't that mean equal under the law?

I am not saying I have come to my own decision on my view of this issue, for it is an issue which has many underlying viewpoints where I can see where each side is coming from on passing the legislation or not. I do not know the answer to this. All I know is it becomes a very sticky situation to try to pinpoint the exact thought that fueled the hate crime, it is all very grey and hard to prove. As the article said, unfortunately, I'm afraid that I agree with this: "Trying to eradicate "hate" will become a witch-hunt." This hunt although for a very good cause, with pure intentions, could quickly turn into mass chaos and more retaliation. So what do we do? Ideas?

Unpacking the Reading Chapter 9: "Just like societies of the present, future societies are molded and shaped by human action" (Newman 310)

I loved the opening analogy of the Dr.Seuss story called the Sneetches. This was one of Newman's more creative moments in the text. What a great way to show that, pretty soon, what is acceptable now, is always changing...things are very often fluid in society, and things that are accepted may not be what is later accepted. The "stranger" who removed the stars from the sneetches bellies to make them more dominant and privileged made me think, what person or institution is the "stranger" representing here? The stranger, as I took it, represents our society and the willingness/unwillingness to move forward and adapt to change. The stranger is the majority perhaps. The powerful. The privileged.

We have learned that individual discrimination is sometimes easier to combat than institutionalized discrimination, because of the latter being so slyly done. But, eventually, each act of individual injustice, if that person takes the situation, and the people come together, and form a social movement, then there can be hopes for change. There just is not enough one single person can do...Throughout history we have seen this happen over again with various groups as the chapter talked about. The issue now lies in, can we continue to make this social movements to make the world even better? Are we going to keep banning together to challenge the unjust? It is difficult to write on this culmination of all we have read in the text. Newman stated that as we finish this last chapter in the book, we may feel empty, like now what? This is just how I feel. He has exposed so many questions and thoughts in my mind. What can we do now as students with this knowledge? Do we forget about it and live our lives? Do we seek change? How can we make a difference in a society where individuals sometimes feel hopeless of change, devoid of justice? These days it seems like just when we feel a taste of hopefulness about the future of justice, events occur reminding us of where we came from...things of the past, horrible things, things we thought we had moved on and learned from. What now? Who now? Who is responsible for change? The underprivileged, the privileged, the commoners?

Another question Newman danced around in the chapter was although it may seem we are moving away as a society now from some dichotomies, there will always be other forms of groups identifying and separating to "us" vs "them" statuses...they will just be changed to other indicators, perhaps of more detail or depth than previous dividers of populations. This was sad to me, because yes, it is good to bond and come together with a group of common identity, it gives confidence and other important attributes, but it also delineates us from becoming more accepting and understanding of each other. Perhaps this is just human nature. Perhaps keys to reoccurring trends of social, economic, racial, sexual etc. unjust stems from the fact that biology plays a role in how we think...

It seems very dissatisfying to me that I am thinking to myself right now "maybe that's just the way things are..." It seems to go against everything I have learned and want to accept that I can take part in to change. I don't want this to be "just how things are" I want change. I want better understanding and treatment of all people on an equal level. My understanding is there on my own privileges and how my own master status contributes to my role in society, but what do I do with that knowledge now? Someone once told me that it is important to know about your past and your heritage so that you know where you are going. Your past does not have to rule your future, but it helps shape it. Our societal past shapes our futures for the good and bad...its what we do with those experiences and our willingness to acknowledge and deem it valuable to change, is what matters.

Newman ends by saying: "Instead of simplifying things, I've complicated them." I believe for change to happen, things need to be complicated. Life is not black and white, yes or no, life is a continuum of gray with an ongoing spectrum of interactions, outcomes, chances and possibilities. It is when you admit that not many things in life are absolutes, then you are open to adaptations of moving forward to a more just place for everyone.

To pass things off in a simple state is out of laziness, denial of privilege, ignoring what you have vs. what others don't...it's the people who take the time to realize that life is not, either/or that have a grasp on what needs to happen for change. We cannot fight stagnant status quo with simple explanations all the time. We are all individuals in this world with our own uniqueness and strengths...that deserves a lot more than keeping things simple.

Observation Journal # 4: "The wieght of the issue"

As a preface to my story I think we need to state the fact that in our culture body image and weight are strongly emphasized over other aspects; so much so that the psyche of millions of women and men everday are effected. This shouldn't be a surprise to read this statement. How many of you have ever heard a friend say something mean and truly offensive about an overwieght individual? Seen the shirt "Not for fat chicks"? Well, I have seen things like this and heard offensive conversations a lot. As a side note, my public speaking class discussed language analysis, and I learned a startling statistic that the English language has something like over 200 words that all mean fat. Although they very in connotation, it is clear that our country is absolutely obsessed with talking about wieght, more specifically focusing on fat. We are truly and positively OBSESSED with it and the ramifications of this obsession manifest itslef varying with intensity depending on how we personally view or accept this fact.

Over the weekend I was at a party and overheard people talking about the "chicks" that were coming. One girl said, "ya I have a bunch of my girlies comin, but I don't want this one girl to come, she's fat..." The conversation went on to talking about whether you like someone more or less because they are fat. It resulted in this girl saying that in fact, she didn't like her because she was fat. Then the conversation got worse. A guy made the remark along the lines of, "ya don't you know that there's a weight limit here...if a girl is too big that it makes less room for another hot girl, she can't be here..." I stood there feeling short of breath and unable to find words. I was so deeply offended that another woman said this about a fellow female. And then even more offended to hear the comment from the male that came afterwards. I hear this type of talk a lot from men, (sorry guys, im not attacking you or trying to single you out as a sex) but I just have not heard it much from females. I was deeply hurt. I am a sensitive individual, and as an extremely non-confrontational person of course I did not say one word. I put my head down and had all these thoughts spinning around in my mind. I wanted to leave. I wanted to rewind time and not be there in that room during that conversation. I wanted to get out..not be aruond people who can be so non-empathetic and hurtful. I have always been so aware of body image and emotions around it...that this just really struck a cord with me.

Why does weight play such a role in someone's acceptance? It does, it's sad, but it really does. And I hate it. What is the "weight of the issue" here? Perhaps the issue is on the surface, superficial thinking...brewing and mounting in people's heads leading to discriminatory comments and conversations that are really hard for others to hear. I wish I had said something, but the truth is...I felt uncomfortable, I felt outnumbered, like I was the only one that didn't look at wieght as something that makes me not like a person. I felt like I was suffocating in the ignorance around me, and at the same time realizing, that I am not much better, because somewhere in the back of my mind...I knew these biases are there, perhaps just less so than in others.

This event has challenged me to now speak up and say something when I am around people who say things like this again. I just am left feeling like I don't understand how people can't think from another's point of view. How can you say something like this, and not think, "wow, thats really hurtful...what if i was the person targeted and this was being said about me?"

Until people challenge, including myself, challenge these hurtful comments about others...it will keep happening and in essence people will become more and more desensitized to its severity. This is very hard to do in a society that preaches its importance all over the media, but it can be done. People can become more sensitive, and perhaps become more aware of the comments they are making, reflecting on the message they are sending not only about who they are targeting, but what it is saying about themselves as an individual. I hope that for the sake of not only those targeted, but the people saying things, that things will change.

Unpacking the Reading Chapter 8 "What he was winning, as I'm sure you know, aws the 'right' to be called into military service" (Newman 268)

"The controversy over forced versus voluntary military service in wartime represents, in microcosm, the economic inequalities that exist in society today..." (Newman 270)


Newman makes a great connection between something concrete, such as methods of enlisting people in the war effort, to something much broader in meaning when he made the comment above. Many people in a lower socio-economic class often join the war for its benefits. This isn't to say that the people who enlist are not doing so because they aren't truly wanting to fight for their country, but it does make clear the fact that many people who are from higher socio-economic classes, as the book notes, often children in the families who are politically involved in policy decision making about the war efforts, are able to opt out of enlisting because the parent's have the "economic wherewithal to keep their children out of harm's way." If we look at this in a larger scope as Newman has in his statement, what this really boils down to is the haves and the have-not's of our country and who can afford to and have the chances of "living a more comfortable life." (270)

I found the section on poverty's border really interesting. I have always thought of poverty as people who can't make the ends meet and are relying on government assistance, but I have not thought about the people who are referred to as "near poor" or the "working poor." These people are just above the poverty line, but struggling to make ends meet, often working many jobs and faced with a psychological humiliation of falling into this "hovering on the margins of poverty."(280) Think of the growing poverty rate we have already, now think about the people who dont fall directly at that number, but close and are facing the same challenges and struggles that the others are...but are not recieving subsidies. This is eye-opening and a little overwhelming to think about. We all know how expensive it is to just live...let alone do anything for fun. "We will never live in a society with perfectly equal distribution of income and wealth....As disparities in income and wealth expand, so too does the gap in quality of life and access to opportunity between those at the top of society and those at the bottom." (274) This makes me feel hopeless and helpless...what can we do so there is more light at the end of the tunnel? (I found myself asking over and over in my head). No things will not be utopian, but lets try to aim for as close as we can. Call me a pure optimist, I guess I am one and nothing is wrong with that. If we think of poverty as a scale with crisis on one side and hope on the other, there needs to be a balance of the two in order for significant change to take place, and an intervention to occur. I wish the chapter talked about the poverty issue a little more balanced in it's views of change.

I was rather offended at the suggestion in the book made by some recent politicians and economists that the reason why there is a wage gap between genders is "men on the whole have more work experience, more training, and higher education than women." (285) This may have been the case decades ago, but now, come on give me a break! I think this is one big rationalization of a deeply engrained institutionalized disadvantage that women face against men. This comes out as glass ceilings in the career world, the idea of the lessened chances a female has to gain an advanced postion at work over a male coworker is just one way this results. The separate spheres ideology was interesting. Basically affirming the "natural" roles for men and women. But, lets face it, we aren't in the '50's any longer. Call it less experience, or one less degree...those are all excuses, the fact of the matter is that women today are just as smart, educated and eligable as any man. Yes, there will be an unqualified woman with less schooling, but I guarantee for that one woman, there is a man out there who is just as underqualified.

Newman leaves us with an overload of information from the chapter. But he poses the question, why aren't we as a society, if we know these inequalities exist on so many levels with various groups, why aren't we more bothered by it? He goes on to say something that is truly sobering in its genuine honesty "just becasue inequalities exist does not necessarily mean that people will percieve them as unfair." (305) The biggest underlying point I got out of this lengthy chapter exploring differences in race, gender, class or sexual orientation was that nothing will change unless people start seeing others as deserving...there needs to be more people out there challenging the status quo of "its just the way things are." We need people to truly see and view it as unfair.

Unpacking the Reading Chapter 7: "Complete 'justice for all' remains an unattained goal." (Newman 266)

After reading the chapter on Inequalities in Law and Justice, I have to admit that not a lot surprised me. We live in a country where media is highly valued and tends to stereotype and dramatize all the time. Given the injustices we know are present today still, it was not shocking to read Newman's closing statement that complete justice for all remains an unattainable goal. Going back to my comment on how our nation relies so heavily on media, Newman said something in the very beginning of the chapter that verified my thinking: "we went to bed comfortable in the knowledge that everything we saw was just phony"(228). Unfortunately, this comfort is the problem. It's a problem because comfort perpetuates the status quo and vicious cycle of inequality and unjust actions. It is the comfort that keeps us from changing and challenging our belief systems.

There was no surprise to read about laws and how they are constructed by those in privilege to control those "regular folk." Money is power, and when you have power you can change things, such as the law. Pretty simple logic here. I hate to say it, but money buys pretty much anything in our country, and it doesn't necessarily have to be something tangible.

I realized when reading about the section talking about same-sex marriages that I had never really thought of how the homosexual partners of the September 11Th victims were treated. It didn't cross my mind that they would be treated differently, but to read that they were not eligible for the same survivor benefits as heterosexuals...that just greatly upset me. I never thought of this from that point of view. I put myself in the shoes of a partner who just lost their loved one...I feel nothing but a reoccurring, "why?"in my mind. This is so sad to think that not even such an atrocity such as 9/11 can bring justice to people who are trying to unite in grief together blew my mind.

It was interesting to read about the past historical and cultural views on rape and sexual violence. I couldn't believe what I read when it said it used to be believed that rape was a crime committed on the male because the female was his property--he owned her. Once again we see this patriarchal society still today, although it has improved, women are largely still subordinated under the male population.

Will justice ever be blind? Is there such a thing? Power, class, gender, race, age, whatever it may be...they may divide us, but do they always have to define us? Imagine a society where it didn't. That is hard to do.

Unpacking the Reading Chapter 6: "Surely a hospital with that volume of patients couldn't possibly treat everyone the way I was treated." (Newman 190)

Newman's chapter exploring the Inequalities in Heath and Illness had some eye opening moments of awareness for me. I feel that I have been raised fairly sheltered and never really thought about health care differences outside my own country. Call this ignorance, or just being sheltered, but I found it refreshing to see that in his opening story about hurting his back while in Bangkok he received just as good of medical care as he would have in a "Western" hospital. This refreshing hope of equality quickly turned to the realization of the utter lack of equality hidden behind it when his sister responded to this quick and thoughtful care by the Doctor by saying, "Well, they knew you were an American, and they knew you'd be able to pay on the spot." This was eye-opening moment number one for me while reading this chapter. Health care isn't only becoming a luxury for those who can afford it in our country, but outside our borders as well. What does this say about our values not just on a national level, but human rights on a global one?

I also had never really thought about the "sick role" and the various obligations and privileges associated with taking this role on. It is interesting how quickly this role can turn from being accepted to "not okay" and pushing the limits of being approved. Some of us are not fortunate enough in our status to even claim the sick role when genuinely warranted. Could this be yet another form/example of white privilege? I think so...

I was not surprised by any of the information on weight and the stigmas between classes, however it was ironic how foot binding is coming back into practice now amongst the upper class white females of society so they can fit into the better taller heels to fit that "its not how you feel, but how you look" image that America media portrays as the norm. In general, I picked up from the reading that within races/classes/cultural backgrounds etc. there are always going to be a select few who are wanting to change things, just some more prevalent and drastic than others...but all for the same basic reasoning: to close in the margin of their social stratification's and stigmas whatever they may be.

Perhaps the most shocking of information in this chapter for me was when it mentioned that world hunger and disease is not an unmanageable task to end. We have the funds to do so. Natural disasters such as the Tsunami brought in outrageous amounts of money to those affected...but when its issues that are day-to-day, like hunger and people not being able to access health care needed, that it is seen as "well that's the way it is" and these things happen everyday. I never realized that we do have the means to end these huge issues. I thought that if we did, it would be done. Ever since I was a little kid, you learn and hear about solving world hunger/health issues...its what every Miss.America pageant and Miss.Universe's perfect answer is...yet why aren't we doing it? Are there really intentions behind our words? Should we even say these things if the resources and the people in power aren't willing to allocate funds to alleviate the less glamorized events...and to solve the more "mundane" daily challenges people face on a more daily basis?

Lets make a call to action to put our money's where are mouth is.

Observation Journal #3: Common Courtesy on the Streets

This past week I was walking down Church Street on my way back to work after taking my break and as I walked through the crowds of people I made some observations. People were lingering around, shopping bags in hand, chatting up the great venues Burlington has to offer. Inferences could be made that these people were from out of town and were pretty well off given the bags in their hands and how they were attired. Now saying this, and I do realize that I am making assumptions about these people, it irritated me to see how these people completely ignored the passer-bys. More specifically,there was this one man who was talking to himself and clearly looked under distress. He was trying to be polilte and make his way through, but the group of "chatters" just stood there and pretended not to notice.

As I got closer to the situation, I moved so that there was room for the man to get by. He said "finally, thank you" in a short and quick, nervous tone. I have no idea what his background is or what life situations he is dealing with, but he appeared to be struggling, perhaps a local transient.

Things like this don't just happen on Church Street, but many places. A certain hierarchy of social status, classism if you will leading into behaviors that treat others who are different with a lack of respect and common courtousey. There was no obvious "this is discrimination" going on here, but rather a quiet descriminating--a type that so often slips under the rug noticed only by those who are observant and wanting to change it. Our country's civil rights benefit these people who are standing in someone's way...well off, "good" citizens. They contribute to a hegemonic-culturally dominant belief--society here in this country. Contriuting to the extending beliefs of the ideas of the "American Dream" and continuing the traits of a class warfare. I am really branching out here with this example, but you have to take the so called "blinders off" and think of the situation in a broader, more globalized sense.

This situation may seem insignificant to the reader at first, but I see some very implicit things that are happening here. The group of "chatters" and the man who was trying to pass them most likely have very different master statuses. They probably grew up differently, face different struggles and interact on a whole other level. I realize that these are all initial assumptions that I am making here. I may even be stereotyping and generalizing here, but it is how I felt.

I could have said to the "chatters" excuse me, this man is trying to, and has been for quite some time, to get by. They looked right at him. I know they saw him. But they only saw him for what he didn't have...not really seeing him and acknowledging him as a human being with human rights. Did I? No. Although, I was happy that I took the initiative to make a physical action to make way for him, even if it wasn't a verbal one. The man clearly appreciated me for what I did. He looked at me like, "finally, somebody paid attention to the man in the tattered clothes...I really am here...just like them."

This event didn't really challenge or change a value/belief of mine as much as it did highlight and strengthen my value/belief around common courtesy and decency to all people. I was raised to show respect to everyone. Stranger, best friend, rich, poor etc. It angered me and made me feel proud for my beliefs and how I was brought up all at the same time. I wanted to shake the people and say..."Don't just ignore someone just because he looks weathered and is talking to himself! We are all humans...show some common courtesy at the very least."

Unpacking the Reading: "So what are you?" (Newman 149)

Newman introduces the chapter "Expressing Inequalities" with a story of personal discrimination he faced as a fourth grader in a new school. When approached by a fellow classmate and asked what he is (religion) he found himself to be a target of unfair treatment. Newman replied he didn't go to a church and found himself being punched in the face. Although Newman admits that this personal experience is not on the same level as people with other and greater stigmatized minorities other than being Jewish, he portrays the fact that you don't have to be the lowest level on the totem pole in our divided society to experience discrimination and hatred from others. The feelings were just the same. He goes onto explore in the chapter just what people from various groups face in being separated into various "isms" and how well they can cope with the ramifications of who they are.

Something that I found particularly as an "ah hah" moment was in the chapter when Newman discussed discrimination at both the personal level and the institutional level. I never thought that the institutional level would be just as harsh as a personal attack. The fact that discrimination by institutions can mask themselves as "rules" or "safety precautions" makes me sick. These systematic stereotypes leading to discriminating acts are so manipulative and deceitful its mind boggling. The fact that companies and organizations go so far out of their way to avoid dealing with the "undesirables" is just so outrageous to me. At one point, the chapter mentioned people speaking over the phone in a "white" voice. Of course, this is done to mask their own identity in hopes of receiving the level of treatment and opportunity as they would if they were white and could rely on the associated "racial transparency." Discrimination at an institutional level is harder to point out and prove in some cases. Reading about the housing and zoning discrimination's and how research shows that this segregation not only effects where you live, but actually increases your chances of catching a deadly disease and decreases your chances of sustaining a successful business goes to show the ramifications our society has for being anything other than white. It is a slippery slope, and a very disturbing one just thinking about how the rank ism of our society forces people within the same group, who you would think would unite together, to engage in "color ism" and discrimination even amongst themselves.

What I have learned from this chapter is that nobody is safe from racial, ethnic, class, sexual, gender, (etc.) discrimination. At a personal level and an institutional one, there will always be a time when someone is outside of the majority, and faces a status of the undesirable. There may be a difference in how often this happens amongst people depending on their status...but nobody is safe from it, there is a whole spectrum of these stereotypes being put into discriminating actions spreading hate and intolerance.

The point of view of this chapter was a bit negative...but how can it not be when inequalities are expressed so heavily everyday? The most powerful statement is at the end where Newman states that "we ourselves, create the boundaries that separate groups and then respond to 'outsiders' as if their outside status is 'natural'...rarely do individuals embrace those who appear different..."

We have the power to change things if we find it valuable to do so. I hope that someday we can decided collectively it's worthwhile to do so.

Observation Journal #2

Double Standards

I work at Banana Republic in Burlington on Church Street and there are several openly gay men that work there. I was astonished one afternoon to hear a particular co-worker whom is one of the openly gay men, to say: "that is so gay...." It took myself a minute to gather my thoughts. I wanted to look right at him and retort..."but your gay...why would you say that? You are insulting yourself!" After a few moments I decided I wasn't going to say anything...but it was strange.

If a straight person were to make that comment, there would be a negative connotation involved and the person would be considered to be making a pejorative comment. But why would someone who is gay, say that? I still am confused to why he made that comment. I think after he said it, he thought: "hm...did I really just say that out loud?"

My point is that I believe it is very easy for people to make these hurtful comments, even when they are a part of the group. There is a sort of double standard here where I am left wondering, "so is it okay for someone to say it if it applies to them, and not for others to say that common lingo-phrase that is so popular among our generation?"

Here is a case where the minority and often stigmatized member of a group displayed this slur...and didn't seem to think twice about how it sounded, or the message it would send.

Once again, we see an instance in which, "where do we draw the line...is a double standard okay?"

Unpacking the Reading: "This is Great!! He just got his first fat lip!!" (Newman, 112)

We go through life looking at people surrounding us, observing what they do, how they do it, and what they look like. From an early age this socialization process is natural and ingrained in our development. Can we raise children not to notice these differences and be androgynous in our distinctions? As hard as people try to do so, it takes a lot more than buying both son and daughter a gender-neutral gift. As the story in the opening of the chapter showed us, the boy and girl found ways to make the Lego's feminine or masculine in their use. As much as we want to be able to make it boundary free, the invisible learned boundaries of our culture still remain. We can train our kids, or children to be one way or another, we see this all through elementary school, and even more so in middle and high school. We learn what is "girlie" what is "macho" and we take on these roles because they are what is accepted.

Newman admits to succumbing to these stereotypes himself of gender biases/roles...when his 11 month son fell and got a fat lip, he was ashamed to admit that his first gut reaction was to take it "as a male rite of passage. After all boys are supposed to fall down and get hurt...I celebrated his injury." Boys and girls from the moment they enter the world are shown symbols of their gender. Baby boys get the blue blanket, and girls the pink. We all know this. It is deep in our subconscious to make this differences between genders, and to try to undo the thinking that is so natural to us is unimaginable.

I thought that Newman raised some interesting and well taken points in this chapter. He spoke of how in our society it is okay for females to be boyish, they are called "tomboys" and it is looked at as a stage that they grow out of. But is less accepted if your a boy and are effeminate. I was a tomboy growing up, had short hair and was friends with everyone. Not just the girls. I liked to play dirty and play rough sports with the boys, not like all the other girls. I was accepted, and it did turn out to be a stage for me. I do not consider myself to be a tomboy anymore. But the point of the matter is that, in this case, it is easier to be female...taking on the stereotypical traits of the male is more commonly seen and not a big deal to people.

Regardless if the learned differences are gender, race, sexuality or social class based, Newman states: "All of us in one way or another are a reflection of larger cultural values, historical processes, and the attitudes and expectations of other people in our lives."

We can question these differences, even try to change them. But the truth of the matter is that we hold the majority's behaviors/roles as "right" and how things should be. As we become more open as a society to altering these socially constructed roles we can start to explore a whole new grey area of identity. If we stop looking at things in opposites or black and white in situation, we create a chasm of possible variations. Endless identities.

Unpacking the Reading: "So, what are you going to ask Santa to bring you for Christmas?"

Newman's opening of the chapter on Portraying Differences made me step back and think about my own comments to people at times. It is strange how seemingly innocent and friendly gestures, when looked at under a closer lense and scrutinized for every connotation of wording, can mean something entirely different in context. When he spoke of the checkout lady asking his son this question, I recognized myself as the checkout lady. Initially nothing seems to be wrong about what she did. She was simply inquiring a question to the little boy. I have worked in retail where I interact with people on a daily basis and I am guilty of it myself. By making these statements Newman points out that we are vastly generalizing and making assumptions that Christianity is assumed just to be what everybody defines themselves with. Did she mean to offend his family and their religious background? No probably not. Same goes for other situations where people make assumptions based on the majority of views among citizens. Often times people do this unknowingly just because what is majority is assumed to be what is unsaid...not needing a qualifying statement afterword. He goes on to talk about how symbols are so important in language and how people interpret what we are saying, into who we are and what we do.
Specfically, Newman says, and I love the way he puts this: "Those who need not be named or depicted--who need no modifying adjective or who need no film or television show to inform viewers of their "way of life"--are those who wield the authority to define themselves and others." This was probably the most powerful statement out of the text thus far for me personally. It makes so much sense.
Tim Wise's article "Honky Wanna Cracker? A Look at the Myth of Reverse Racism" also gave me some "ahah" moments. Basically when posed with the question of why he was only seeming to be concerned with white on black racism vs. black on white racism, he rebuddled it with, "sorry, but it just isn't the same." Before that conclusion, he spoke of the very crucial things you have to think about when faced with the idea of reverse racism. He makes very valid points, that as white citizens, what we say holds more weight, therefore anything racist we say is more damaging than anything a non-white says, because we are already the ones in power. What people don't realize is that there is such a HUGE chasm between the levels of intensity words such as the N word carry versus cracker or honky. I loved the point he made about "when churches start getting burned down by militant blacks who spray paint "kill the honkies" on the sidewalks outside, then maybe I'll take seriuosly these concerns over "reverse racism." There is not a level playing field to begin with here. Therefore the power of these words to either group are going to inevitably hold more damage than another to the opposing group.

Observation Journal #1 - (READ this one, other one is blank/mistakenly published)

"Grocery Store Dilemma"

I was in the Hannaford Grocery store, getting some food for the house when a reoccurring yell came from a few isles down. A mother was with her two young children and screaming at them that "if you don't stop it, I'm gonna give you a lot more than your shoe..." Now, I could make some pre-conceived judgements about this woman by her appearance alone, but because I know that one cannot make assessments on an individual until they know about other factors in their environment, I will not do so. What I will do is ponder what is going on in her home life and family life? What are the different stresses that are causing her to scream and physically threaten her 3-4 year old boy? Perhaps she grew up in an abusive home? Are they tight on money, is there tension between her and other larger systems, such as her job, her community, husband, extended family? What is her interaction with the larger mezzo and Macro systems? Is there strain...is there an in congruence of needs being met between the systems?

Finally, it was more than just me that witnessed this verbal bashing. Grocery employers began to keep an eye on the situation...perhaps security was called. I am not sure. But the real question is, to what point is the responsibility passed on to other witnessing civilians, if at all? I know that I felt a strong obligation and concern to do something about this situation, but I did not know what was appropriate. At what point is this private trouble a public issue? I left the grocery store curious as to what happened later that evening with the children. I couldn't help feel like I could have stopped something. And finally, I felt resentment, I felt that I chose to ignore what was right in front of me simply because it was out of my comfort zone...and in choosing to ignore it, I was exhibiting just another form and variation of my privilege as an upper class, white female in society. This made me feel horrible. I at that point felt no better than the people who blatantly go about their lives, simply feeling no obligation to use their privilege to change and better society, whether it be racial, socio-economic status, gender, etc. that allows them not to think about other worse off people.

Observation Journal #1

"Life is going to be different from now on...In Virginia you were white boys. In Indiana you're going to be colored boys.." (Newman, 31)

In chapter 2 of the Newman text, "Manufacturing Differences" it really brought to the surface for me all the lines people really do draw to separate themselves from others and just how many endless categories there really can be. As long as people are wanting to feel superior and dominant, there will always be more ways to distinguish groups of people. This mechanism of separation as a tool to one-up from another is seen in every form. Newman opens up with stories of two individuals who both experience a form of boundaries being crossed and things taken for granted. Gregory Williams lived a life of white identity until he turned 10 and found out that because his paternal grandmother was black, he was going to be considered black too. This news forced Williams to question and examine what makes someone black...and how does one suddenly make the shift from living to be white to suddenly being told you are black and everyone is going to treat you as black. The perception of others changed around him, nothing really changed inside him physically with his body though. This goes to show how society needs to have that boundary and line there, and imaginary classification system of race, that is seen so strongly with how people are judged, treated and thought of. If race is a biological myth and is socially constructed, but it holds so much value to who a person is and their identity in our society, then who are we really? From an essentialist's perspective "people's definitions and labels can change, but an individuals essence always exists." A constructivist would say that things are real simply because we give meaning to them. So who is right? Are peoples differences due to nature or nurture? Would admitting that we are all more alike than different as a human race really be so bad? What would society do with no one to blame or put down? How would we feel better without someone worse off? Newman comments that "our ideas about the contribution of genes, hormones, or anatomy ebb and flow with shifting political and cultural ideas....what's important, for our purposes, is not so much whether race,class, gender, and sexual identities have biological underpinnings but how we, as a society, come to define and value the relative contributions of biology and culture." I strongly agree with his comment. It is so important when looking at how people are divided and classed to look around at the environment and what is going on with other factors.
Robert Jenson wrote the article, "White Privilege Shapes the U.S." and it was very interesting to read this after getting a more statistical and factual analysis from the Newman text. Jenson interviewed a college applicant and asked his views on affirmative action and the student said he didn't believe in it. He said it was not fair, people needed to be on an even playing field. But when faced with the question that society itself if white dominated, and in itself is already an uneven playing field, the student responded in saying "That really doesn't matter." This was the crux of what Jenson was trying to point on in writing this article. How can someone be aware of the White privilege, but choose to ignore it and its meaning? To some degree the fact that a person has white skin alone, they could have all other things at a very unfortunate state, they will have advantage over non-white skinned individuals. Jenson says we need to evaluate the choices we make in what to do with this success we make as white people. Maybe some day we can start to level the playing field. I hope so. I strongly agreed with the tone and affect in both readings, they were dead on.

"Yeah, but if I was Arab American, I'd have been there for hours and they probably would have strip-searched me!" (Newman, pg. 6)

David Newman introduces the chapter on "Differences and Similarities" addressing the issue of various ethnic groups and the differences of how they are treated. Post September 11th there has obviously been an onset of positive and negative reactions. People have both come together to aide in the grieving process but people have also come together to label and stigmatize people of a targeted skin tone, or nationality. What is the trade off for better security? Yes, we do wait in lines longer and go through more check-points, but isn't it all for the safety of Americans? And the lines are blurry when we talk about, "for the safety of Americans,"aren't the same people deserving of these protections and precautions as the white, Anglo-Saxon population. Just because of a darker skin or other non-European heritage, aren't they still entitled to the same treatment we are as white Europeans? The Sociological Perspective delves into exploring these questions. There is a constant need to distinguish one group from another, or as Newman puts it, an "us" from a "them." We rely on predisposed thinking and automatically assume things about people because of their heritage, age, sex and so on and so forth. I agree strongly with Newman when he stated that, "The first step in exploring the intersections of race, class, gender, and sexuality is respecting the way that individuals define themselves." The article on "Exploring the Depths of Racist Socialization" by Tim Wise made me reflect on some background information I had just read in Newman, chapter 1. Wise talks about how the death of his grandmother sparked an odd correlation to the ingrained nature of a racist socialization process. I was saddened to hear about the deteriorating of his grandmother with Alzheimer's and at the same time it was a natural digression of her mind and body that gave way to a sobering reality. Wise left us by saying, "The nurses knew and so did I why my grandmother could no longer fight. For the rest of us, there is no similar excuse available." The clear message here is that our country has a long history of racist conditioning and implanting preconceived notions since childhood. As much as they are attempted to be covered up and fought against, they remain under several layers of consciousness...like an onion peeling back through the layers until the core is reached, the racism embedded in American society. Wise had a rather pessimistic tone to his writing, but i guess it is deserved. He has a point when he said we need to stop just feeling guilty and take actions for the past and present inequalities. Change will happen through action, not sitting around feeling bad about things...there needs to be concrete thoughts put into action. Use the remorse and do something about it, spread awareness and compassion through sharing experiences and stories.

testing my blog

I think I figured this out!