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!