The Intent of Entertainment

In one of the “How it Went Down” readings about Sarah Silverman, the ‘guy’, (who was an audience member) says something like, its ok if Sarah makes jokes about the Jewish community, but it is a whole different story when it comes to making jokes about “chinks.” I thought this was a very intriguing comment for many reasons.

First, it shows the double standard that our society tends to apply. Many people in class were discussing how certain jokes are appropriate if an individual of that race/religion says them and not ok if they are about a different race/religion than their own. At first this made sense to me and its like I have always thought this “social norm” without really thinking about it. I can see how someone making fun of their own identity is funny and its typically because the jokes they choose to tell are often less offensive to individuals like themselves. For example, a white person might choose to make fun of the Caucasian race with more accepting comments than if an African American chose to make fun of whites with comments that may be less accepted. Overall, there are certain stereotypes in groups of people that are more or less accepted than others and an individual making jokes of their own group will typically chose to poke fun of the stereotypes that are more accepted.

However, when I thought more about this double standard I realized that it does not really matter whose mouth stereotypes are being made fun of from. Society has a deceiving image of certain stereotypes because they have co-opted them. Often, the same stereotypes are poked fun of while other cultural aspects of a group of people go unheard. By only allowing society to hear certain stereotypes get made fun of, the comedian is almost changing the way a society perceives that certain culture. With this thought, I do not believe that anyone has the right to choose how an entire group of people’s culture is perceived by society. I don’t think it make a difference whether the person is in that group or not, that is not a privilege anyone should have.

So these apposing ideas really confuse me. I see both sides, however, I don’t necessarily feel against comedians who use these comical methods to make people laugh. After our last lecture I have come to the conclusion that I believe it’s about the intent of the person poking fun of the stereotype. This makes sense with my first viewpoint because obviously people who are poking fun of themselves don’t intend to inflict pain or offend anyone from their own race/religion etc. Also, going along with the second viewpoint, most comedians’ sole purpose is to entertain. I do not think they are necessarily trying to co-opt other cultures because while trying to entertain their intent is not to condense cultures, restrict real cultures, or give a false image of a certain culture. With that said, although comedians mean to entertain, it does not mean that they don’t also do those things unintentionally. In a discussion we had in class, I thought someone made a good point when they said an individual going to the Sarah Silverman show should go knowing what to expect, and thus should not take offense to the jokes she makes. However, if a comedian goes to speak on a talk show such as Silverman did at Cannons, people are not there to be accepting towards the jokes she makes. In this case, if the saphire of the joke is not correct people will get offended.

All in all, comedians should stick to entertaining audiences with their stereotypical jokes at their own shows where audiences are expecting it, and they’re to see it. While doing that elsewhere, I think is inappropriate.

Black and White Proms

After we watched the video about divided proms in Mississippi, I was really baffled. That in 2008, we still had separate proms for black and white students. In a society where we are taught to be color blind, and accept people for who they are, I was extremely surprised to see how much these parents fought to keep them separate.

Heather was dating a black boy and neither of their parents accepted it and were not allowed at each others house. Her dad out right stated that he wanted to keep races separate. He tried to take away her phone, forbidding her to see him, etc in order to break it up. He did state however that he would accept it if he was who she really wanted to be with, really? It didn't look that way! His parents were just as unsympathetic from what I saw. It is really a shame that parents cannot look past outward appearances and give these two a chance. Additionally, Heather and her boyfriend drove separately to the prom, probably because they were not allowed at each others houses to go together. She also stated that she had lost friends because she was dating a black boy. Yet, while at the prom- they got the biggest cheer from their peers when walking across the stage together. Their relationship will be tested everyday in a town like Charleston.

Jessica was a little spit fire in that, she told you how it was and that was that. Her parental relationships seemed very dysfunctional which appeared to make her a stronger girl. She was very proud to say that she had black friends, and that color didn't matter to her. She was labeled negatively in her town because of it. As well, she claimed that businesses wouldn't hire her due to the fact that she associated with black people. I have a feeling this is exaggerated, but looking at the town, I am not so sure. Her stepfather even threatened to kill one of her black friends because he was at her house.

I think that it is easy for my generation to say that we grew up color blind, but I was not one of them. The biggest thing that makes people mad in my hometown is that buses of children are being sent to our schools from inner city Milwaukee. The taxes where my parents live are really expensive, and most of that goes toward the school system. My mom lived in a town that tried integration, where some of the inner city kids were sent to the suburbs, and vice versa. My mom was one of the students that was sent to the downtown location and she faced racism every day. She was shoved down the halls by black students and witnessed multiple fights where knives, hair picks, and other weapons were pulled on students. She was all of 100lbs soaking wet and was not able to stand up for herself, and she has a lot of built up anger towards black people because of it. My mom is really mad for the fact that she moved away from that city so that her kids did not have to go through that and they are going to do it in the city she moved to. I think that if that decision is made to integrate my old high school, my parents will move.

However, I keep trying to tell my parents that it is because of white suburbs that integration is happening. When white people move out of cities and take businesses with them, what are left are people who have no resources and no source of income. If businesses were opened up downtown Milwaukee, more jobs would be available which allows for an expendable income for its citizens. As well, these school systems are failing and no one wants to teach for them because of the low wages and sketchy neighborhoods. Yet, one of our elementary schools had flat screen TVs in their cafeteria with announcements and the lunch menu playing. How can you say that his is a necessary purchase for the school? If that money was put into fixing up school systems downtown- there wouldn't be this need to send the inner city kids to the suburbs.

I think that my parents generation is a big set back for many equality changes and hopefully my generation can be the beginning to fixing these problems.

A Class Divided

I thought the “A Class Divided” video was so crazy. I just loved how involved the young, third grade students were. It is so baffling to think that in third grade, children understand when they are being discriminated against. They know that it isn’t right or fair for a person with blue eyes to be better than them, or a person with brown eyes to be better than them. They are probably about eight years old, and they immediately know when they are being treated unfairly. I think this was a great experience for the children and definitely helped them further understand what discrimination is. Most of all, I find it shocking how quickly cooperative, thoughtful children could turn into hateful, vicious, discriminating third graders. The children went along with what the teacher told them, even though it wasn’t right, and even the next day, when the roles were reversed, they still played their part. I think that in this scenario, the teacher can be compared to society. When society sets certain expectations, beliefs, and statuses about or for people, the people feel the need to go along with them, and in this case the people are the children. No matter it is right or wrong, the majority of people abide by what society says.

When society attacks one group of people in a certain way, it requires others to fight back and fight for what is right. Just like with discrimination between races, people have worked hard to prove that all people are equal. The goal is for people to be color blind, or race blind. It is to not see color and just see people. It is reassuring that today, we have gotten to a certain point where most people have equal chances and opportunities that are not affected by their race. I think that it really is possible to not see color. It definitely is a worthwhile goal to strive toward. I think that it is possible for people to acknowledge differences without making judgments, and by doing so the color line will start to blur and not be as distinct as it has been in the past or is still today. Someday, maybe equality for all people really will exist, no matter what their skin color may happen to be.

Skin color, eye color, no matter what feature it may happen to be, really is a silly thing to make a judgment call on or discriminate against. People are people, each with thoughts and feelings, and when people truly realize, that in reality, everyone is so much like them, maybe they will be more accepting. Race is something you are born with. You can’t choose to be a certain color. You have no control over it. There is no reason for the color of your skin to, in any way, shape, or form, dictate any part of your life. Every person has the right to the pursuit of happiness and a wonderful life unaffected by race.

The English Language

The United States is one of the few countries that does not have an official language. Even though it does not officially have one, the English language is one of the most frequented languages within the country. Pertaining to whether or not businesses should be allowed to require customers to speak English, I think it really depends on the circumstances. If it is a restaurant where it can be easily communicated what the person would like to order, or a store where the person can simply check out items at the cash register, I think there is no great importance for the customer to be required to speak the English language. However, I feel that employees should speak English if they are going to be associating with customers, because at least in Wisconsin, the majority of people seem to speak English.

As far as dealing with businesses in which employees do speak English, but do so poorly, I think it is very aggravating for the customer. For example, a lot of issues arise with new technologies and devices, and when you call the 1-800 number, most likely, you are talking to someone in another country. At least with computers and cell phones, this seems to be India. Personally, I have a very hard time with accents of other countries, so I get very frustrated, and when a person purchases a product and it ends up having problems, at the very least all they want is to be able to understand what the person on the phone is saying so they can attempt to fix the problem. Language definitely is a barrier between communicating.

Besides in the business world, I think that schools should not be required to provide multi-lingual education. I feel like that is a lot to ask of a school, at least in regions where the majority, if not all students, already speak English. Seeing as though there have been so many budget cuts, specifically in gym, art education, and music education, I don’t understand how any school could be expected to provide a multi-lingual program as well. If they did, I feel like other classes would end up getting cut in addition to those already eliminated, and those classes would probably benefit a lot more students than the multi-lingual program would. I feel that the school could probably provide a family with resources to help their child learn to speak English, but should not be forced into providing a multi-lingual program. If schools were required to provide one, I think a lot of tax payers would be very upset, because most likely, a lot of their children would not even benefit from the program, yet here they are paying higher taxes toward their child’s education when gym, art, and music are being cut.

In school, children often have the opportunity to learn Spanish, French, and sometimes German and Japanese. I think that if young students can be open to learning another language, can’t people who live in the United States be open to learning English as well?

Income and Wealth

I think that in order to establish a financial base that can be passed on generation to generation, people can start by living within their means and saving money. Although, just because someone is born into a low income family, that does not mean that they do not have opportunities to come into wealth during their lifetime. I think the majority of success stories have a lot to do with people being driven and working hard toward their goals. When someone is determined and puts their mind toward something, they can achieve great things.

I do not agree with Shapiro that our lives are shaped by the wealth of our parents or prior generations. I look back at my dad’s parents, my grandparents, who worked hard in life, but lacked higher education. They were by no means at all wealthy, but my dad went on to college and got a degree, which I believe is a huge factor in wealth. I believe that education is the key to success. Yes, a few famous people have greatly succeeded without higher education, but in reality, education is pertinent to success. He and my mom both worked for a while until my mom had kids, then she stayed home, but the thing is, my parents are big savers. I think saving money plays a huge part in wealth. Sometimes people spend money like it grows on trees. And obviously, it doesn’t. I think there are so many ways that you can create wealth for yourself and your family. You can put money aside each and every month into bank accounts, to save for your children’s college funds and just simply to have money in the bank. When you save money you can own things and have them be yours, not owned by the bank or dependent on a loan that has to be repaid. I think independence of owning things creates pride in what people have. Also, people tend to value things that they have worked hard for.

Besides saving money, I feel that living within one’s means is extremely beneficial to wealth as a whole. My family was never one to go out to eat every night of the week or buy whatever we wanted at the store. Going out to dinner at a restaurant has always been a rare event, since it is very expensive to eat a single meal at a restaurant for six people. When we go to the store, my mom only buys necessities and what is on sale or clearance, and she uses coupons. If she doesn’t need it, she doesn’t buy it. To me, this makes perfect sense. If I want something but I don’t literally need it, I have to buy it with my own money. I feel like when parents instill values in their children about the importance of money, it is evident that they impact their perspective about how crucial saving and living within ones means really is. Along with wealth comes the relief that your family will never go without, and you will always be able to provide for them.

Gender Roles and Masculinity

I think that in 2010, gender roles are not as clear cut and separate as they used to be years ago. It is no longer the man that always goes to work and makes the money, just as it is no longer the woman that always stays home with the kids and does the cooking and cleaning. In society years ago, those were the expectations. There were female roles, and there were male roles. Today, society is a lot more flexible about what is socially acceptable. Certain roles are no longer specific to gender. A woman can go to work and be the bread winner, and the man can stay home with the kids and take care of the household. It seems to be that there is a lot more emphasis on the male contributing more to the household and upbringing of the children. Involvement of both parents in the family life seems to be more important, yet expectations tend to be fairly equal for both parents. One parent isn’t simply expected to support and take care of the entire family by oneself. In this way gender is no longer as set on specific roles as it was in the past.

In particular, I like the idea of “doing gender,” that gender is not something you are, but rather, it is something that you do. I think this is very true. People can definitely look masculine, but a lot of the time clothing and poise add to that masculinity. The way someone portrays or acts makes them more or less masculine. I think that women are attracted to more masculine men, and for this reason men may seek to appear as masculine as they can in order to attract women. Also, I think men strive to be more masculine than other men in order to seem tough, like they can’t be messed with. Society and the influence from media definitely encourage masculinity.

I also thought it was an interesting concept that there is a difference between masculinity and masculinities. It is very logical that the old way is the one masculinity of the male gender role, the male going to work to make money and support the family. This goes along with the guidelines, norms, and expectations on behavior. The new way of multiple masculinities is intriguing, in that there is a hierarchy of masculinity, with which everyone in society agrees with the hegemonic, or top of the hierarchy, masculinity. This may involve a rich, powerful, and attractive man. I think that a lot of society’s expectations for this masculinity have developed from media. On television, there are shows like “The Bachelor” where there are all of these beautiful girls who are all there to fall in love with this one man who has it all. He is masculine, rich, exciting, and of course has a great personality. The ideal masculine man in society continues to have higher and higher expectations. Really, sometimes the list of all these things that fit the ideal category for a masculine man seem like they are unattainable and only present in dreams or fairy tales.

Racist Jokes

After reading the articles “You just don’t get it, Silverman” and “How it went down” I was beyond shocked how this one word, “chink,” could cause so much controversy. The dialogue and conversation in the articles went on and on about whether or not it was an appropriate joke for Silverman to have told, and honestly, at that point, if I were Silverman I would feel like never ever telling another joke again. All of this thanks to one word. I definitely think that part of the reason it was such a huge deal was because Silverman is not Chinese. If she were Chinese I think that the audience and anyone else would not have had such a huge problem wither her saying the word. Because she is white, she does not have the “right” to say that word.

I find this extremely similar to the use of the “N-word.” A long time ago in class, we watched a video clip about a teacher referring to his students in such a fashion, insisting that it was okay because it was not only a different tense of the word, but that it was how all of the students referred to each other. First of all, he shouldn’t have been saying it to students in the first place, but if he weren’t a teacher and if here were black, I don’t think there would have been such great controversy over it. A black person is allowed to say that term, but a white person or any other person of another race does not have the “right” to do so.

It is controversies like these that make me not want to ever say a single word that directly indicates race. Many people get easily offended when it comes to the subject of race, and sometimes I find it best to avoid any mention of race at all.

One thing Silverman said that really made me think was, “Yeah, it is clearly a joke, you know, illuminating racism. It’s not a racist joke. It’s a joke about racism.” First of all, I think that all jokes can be interpreted differently. No matter what the intent, the listener forms their own interpretation, and it is their own personal opinion that decides whether or not they even thought the joke was funny in the first place. Second, I do not quite understand what Silverman means by her use of the words “illuminating racism.” Was she showing that racism is a bad thing? I don’t think so. In her joke she implied that the word “chink” was inappropriate, but yet her quote did not make me learn a lesson about racism. Third, I would like to say that I would like to have her explain the difference between a racist joke and a joke about racism. They may seem like two totally different things to her, but this is because of the way she interprets them. When the public is interpreting her jokes, they form their own beliefs, and don’t always understand the joke the way she sees it. For this reason, I think that people who say racist jokes or “jokes about racism” should be very cautious about what they say about other races.

Mascots and Offense

Regarding the film “In Whose Honor” about Native American mascots, I was shocked how emotional the main woman was about seeing the Native American mascot at a basketball game. Personally, I think she was being a little overdramatic with her insistence that things that she was taught to respect were being mimicked for entertainment purposes. Yes, it is true that entertainment was the goal, but the intent was not to offend anyone. I think she was so emotional about the whole thing because she is so connected to her heritage and culture. I have a friend that is part Native American and she goes to Florida State University, whose mascot is the Seminoles, and she finds no offense to it whatsoever. The fact that the mascot is the Seminoles was not a deciding factor when applying to the school, or when deciding to attend. But then again, she is not extremely involved in her Native American heritage like the woman from the film was.

I think that really there isn’t a huge reason to change these mascots. But if it is going to prove to be more trouble than it is worth, the school might as well change them. I think that some people will be offended no matter what the mascot is changed to. You can never please everyone. In cases like these, I feel that it is important for those who feel offended to think about the intent of the mascot. If the mascot was chosen to represent an authority figure that commands respect, then shouldn’t people be proud? Because I don’t have an opposition or direct cultural connection to these mascots, I find it hard to understand why this huge controversy exists.

The idea of Native Americans being mimicked and portrayed out of tradition brings up a topic which we discussed earlier in class, Halloween costumes. A few people in class seemed very opposed to dressing up like Native Americans. Personally, I find nothing wrong with this. One of the things I dressed up as this past Halloween was a cowgirl. I ask, am I offending cowboys in the west when I wear this outfit? Will I really offend people if I decide to be a Native American next Halloween? What if, my eight year old sister just loves Pocahontas, a Disney character, and wants to be her for Halloween. Is that just as offensive? What if she decides to be Jasmine, a Disney princess, who is Middle Eastern, will she offend people from the Middle East? If she is Mulan, will she offend the Chinese? Where and how do we decide what is offensive or acceptable? I feel that because everyone finds different things offensive, it is impossible to get rid of all mascots that people find offensive. It is impossible to simply draw the line that defines what you can do that is acceptable and what is offensive. It is going to be different in every case, under every circumstance. No matter what, to some extent, there will be controversy.

Segregated/Integrated Proms

I thought the documentary “Prom Night in Mississippi” was so eye-opening. The main reason I was so shocked by the town divided by race, was because even though I am from a town that is dominantly white, I don’t feel like there are people that are totally anti-black or other minorities like some of the white parents in the video were. In my opinion, the idea of segregated proms, especially still today, is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. The United States has a legal document entitled the Bill of Rights, explaining what rights people are entitled to, and then some white parents think that their white children should not attend a dance with black children. Ridiculous. It is ideas such as these that I truly do not understand.

If anything, the only thing I can even slightly attribute their reasoning to is to having grown up in a past generation. It seems like past generations are definitely a lot less accepting of many things, race especially. I had thought that the majority of people from my generation were very accepting of all races, but the one girl in particular from the documentary that claimed to be threatened by a black girl proved that racist parents still have the ability to instill their same views into their children. If anything, I think this is sad. I feel bad for the girl, since most likely she will always view race in such a way, and she will never get it. She will never get it through her head that all people are equal. Personally, I just cannot fathom not understanding that. Growing up, I never thought I was better than anyone for being white, if I even thought anything at all, it was simply that my skin was not the same color, and that made us look different. End of story. I feel like you have to be extremely selfish to not realize that everyone has thoughts, and feelings, and people are people. Their skin color does not make them any less human.

Pertaining to the interracial couples that attended the integrated prom, I was shocked when the one white girl’s dad said that he hopes that she and her (black) boyfriend go off to different colleges and grow apart. I felt like this was such an incredibly sad thing for a parent to say. No matter what, a parent should want not only what is in the best interest for their child, but also what makes them happy. It is preposterous for her father to think that it is best for them to slowly “grow apart” simply because he does not like the fact that his daughter is dating a black boy. If anything, I would at least like to give him credit for acknowledging that it is a selfish thing for him to say. It is still a wonder how someone realizes they are being racist, but feels no need to change their ways or beliefs. All in all, I am glad that the integrated prom was a success, saddened that a white prom was still held, and I hope that the integrated prom is still held at the Mississippi school.

Derogatory Terms

In response to the question, “Do you think women should be offended by words like “bitch and ho,” I would say yes, women SHOULD be offended by these derogatory terms. However, if you were to ask me “ARE women offended by words like “bitch and ho,” I would say no, they are not. At least in my generation, in the culture I have been brought up in, these words mean little, if anything. Yes, people go, “Oh, she is such a bitch; she did such and such…” But at the same time, girls will say things like, “Bitch, we need to go shopping this weekend. Text me.” It is like one of those words that loses its meaning over time. If someone from my mom’s generation were to be called a bitch or ho, I think it would mean a lot more, because that generation still associates those terms with the bad meaning they are really supposed to have. Differences between generations and their views on things really are shocking.

I feel that derogatory words such as bitch and ho are similar to someone saying, “That’s gay” or “That’s retarded.” Because these words have been so overused, and used out of context, the meaning does not mean what it used to mean once upon a time. I think that a lot of my generation uses vocabulary that older generations find offensive, and this is because they still connect a meaning with these terms. In my generation, these terms do not mean what they used to, so we tend to not get offended as would be expected.

The majority of my friends do use the words bitch and ho, sometimes in a mean way, sometimes in a nice way. It sounds funny to call someone a bitch or ho “in a nice way,” but the terms can almost be used to address other girls today. When you think about it like that, it is almost like a man calling a woman “his bitch.” This kind of situation brings up the concept of female objectification. The idea that women are eye-candy, and worthless, simply sex objects definitely has a connection with these derogatory terms. Until you think of it like that, it doesn’t seem like a big deal at all, but when a man seems to own a woman like that, it seems like there is a problem.

Then again, if I think about relationships and the whole boyfriend girlfriend thing, I think that people kind of put a label on their partner. A man may introduce his girlfriend to his friends and say, “This is MY girlfriend so and so…” and a woman would probably introduce her boyfriend the same way. It is just strange to think how when referring to relationships, it is almost in a possessive sense, as in someone belonging to someone else. When I think of it like that, I think that it is the girl that belongs to the guy, she is his. That is where “his bitch” comes into play. Even though society may view the words bitch and ho, as well as other derogatory terms, in this sense, I think that these terms should be considered offensive. Even though their meaning may not be as strong as it once was, the words still have that underlying meaning.

Hip-Hop and Rap

I thought that the film “Hip-Hop: Beyond Beats and Rhymes” was very eye opening. I am from the Milwaukee suburbs, I went to an almost all white school, and the majority of people my age definitely listened to music stations like 103.7 Kiss Fm, basically all hip-hop and rap music. Hearing that 70% of hip-hop listeners are white males came as a slight shock to me. I expected the percentage to be high, but I thought it would have been a little more balanced in comparison to the number of black male hip-hop listeners.

Personally, I really like hip-hop and rap types of music. At school dances, that is what we always listened to. When I would go to clubs in Milwaukee, that is exactly the kind of music that would be playing. I feel like hip-hop and rap is the music of the current generation. However, this definitely does not prove true for my mom’s generation. If we are driving in the car and I turn on hip-hop or rap she immediately changes it. She insists that she “can’t even understand what they are saying, so she is not listening to it.” In contrast, my dad doesn’t mind at all when I play music like that, in fact I think he thinks it is funny, because he often raps along and acts all thug, when in reality, he is a very Italian white guy. Most of all he just likes to give me a good laugh, but it is reassuring that he isn’t so harsh toward what I like to listen to.

When Fat Joe said, “Everybody wants to be hard,” I totally agree. Guys want to seem tough and powerful, not necessarily like a total hard-ass, but definitely cool. I don’t believe that this applies to females too, but I do have a girl friend that lived in Atlanta, Georgia for a few years, and she is white, but she acts pretty “ghetto.” And by ghetto I mean that she acts like she is a total thug, which is often expressed by her vocabulary. I think that living in Atlanta gave her this desire to act in such a manner, and she also wears clothes that are typically advertised toward black women, such as Apple Bottom, Ecko Red, and Baby Phat. By wearing these clothing brands, it is her way of acting ghetto. Back to guys wanting to be “hard,” I think that the tough front commands respect, and every guy wants to be respected, so that is what is so appealing about being “hard.” Giving off a rough and tough persona is like saying, “Don’t mess with me,” and shows a dominating nature.

I think that music made by black artists represents a different culture. Until you actually sit down and listen to the lyrics, or watch the music video, you may not totally understand what they are singing about. Yes, I understand that these lyrics may exaggerate at times or not represent a real life occurrence, but there are definitely rappers that rap about their life, such as Lil’ Wayne. I believe that music can be really eye opening to other cultures and that it gives people a feeling or sense of connection to other people. Music always has a deeper meaning, and it should be enjoyed and shared with others. Even though past generations may not view hip-hop and rap in the same light that my generation does, we can still embrace it.

Attitudes toward Sexuality

Regarding “Americans Have a Different Attitude,” I thought there were a lot of generalizations about Americans. In particular, I thought the quote from the Filipina immigrant mother referring to sex and going out with men before marriage, “And I don’t like it to happen to my daughters as if they have no values. I don’t like them to grow up that way, like American girls” was almost funny. She generalized an entire country of girls. I understand that her being Catholic affects her beliefs about sex before marriage, but the going out with men before marriage part is absurd. Personally, I don’t understand how a woman can find a man they are going to date or even figure out what kind of man they want to marry unless they date first to see what they want in a relationship. Yes, I agree that many, if not most, “American girls” date and go out with men before marriage, but all American girls do not have sex before marriage. The way she described American girls made it seem like they are awful people for having relationships with the opposite sex before marriage.

The quote from the second generation Filipina daughter, “I found that a lot of the Asian American friends of mine, we don’t date like White girls date. We don’t sleep around like White girls do” was yet another generalization toward “White girls.” Reading this quote almost made me want to laugh, because that is a ridiculous thought, that this entire group of White girls sleeps around. So not true. But I guess that is the way generalizations about certain groups of people work. People form views and opinions about groups of people and assume everyone of that color or place fits into that particular assumption or category.

I was very intrigued by the idea of the “conceptualization of white women as sexually immoral.” The Filipina view of American women lacking morals makes Filipinas seem perfect and always holding strong morals. The difference between these two groups seems to be like a competition about which is better, defined by who has the more valuable morals. I think that the interpretation by others of white women being sexually immoral may have been influenced by the media. I feel that especially in television shows aired on VH1 and MTV where there are too many reality shows to count, many of which feature white girls who live the party life. I am white, and when I see shows such as these, I think little if anything of it. I know that not all white women act in a manner similar to the one portrayed on television. The goal of television is to increase viewers and make money. Television show companies are going to air what makes them money, and if it is a show about girl drama and sex, then that is what people will make their assumptions on.

Overall, I feel that no matter what, everyone is going to form their own opinions about other cultures and ways of life. Until you walk in each and every one of these person’s shoes and see life from their perspective, you won’t truly understand the society in which people have grown up. When society is nonchalant about sexuality, people grow up to feel that way about it, nonchalant. Unless importance is placed on something, society will not show it the same respect that it may deserve.

Notes on social movement

I was always skeptical about social movement; of all the moments in recent history, I could not recall one which social movement functioned as a major turning point. I do admit that such view is rather extreme, jumping on conclusion, but it seems so true, but however, I do not completely distrust the idea.

Rather, I see social movement as antinomic, unfruitful mass action, which occur after failures of all the other possible alternatives. In uncultured terms, I interpret social movement as "squirming" of people; metaphorically, it is an act of defeated soldiers holding a castle after numerous retreats from invading enemy. Social movement is a "last resort," a final resistance against social phenomena that threaten well-beings of the society. It may fail, and does so in most cases, but its meanings and importance should not be degraded.

In recent decade, "candle light demonstration" became extremely popular in Korean societies. it is peaceful demonstration marked by candle holding demonstrators, and it has been the most popular form of demonstration in Korea for a decade. I remember reading an news article that estimates more than 30% of university students having an experience of attending candle light demonstration.

At first, the popularity of the demonstration was upheld as an icon of Korean democracy. People really believed in it. For a decade people had protested against numerous national cases. However, when I really think about its effectiveness, I am skeptical of the demonstration. candle light demonstration has been the most popular form of social movement in South Korea, but it had never really successfully altered the decisions of the government. The U.S. had gained what they wanted out of FTA deals, Korean version of patriot act was passed, new media law was enacted, and now four major Korean broadcasting stations are ran by people close to the current president. What had countless demonstrations had accomplished was only letting the government know how strongly people are opposed to the current president.

During the lecture, Angela had lectured about how social movement take in place, but I couldn't grasp on requisites of successful social movement. I know what I seek to find may not exist, and even if such exist, it would be different for different situations. I guess what I really seek to find is more cases of successful social movements besides the one by Cesar Chavez. I might be ignorant for saying such, but I think the growth and evolution of social movements have failed to keep up with today's fast-evolving economy and culture.

Falling in Love with an Image

In the “Yellow Fever” reading by Eng, there were many ideas mentioned that I could identify with. Eng discusses this “Yellow Fever” she had started noticing in older males who seemed really attracted to her. As a teenager, this artificially boosted her confidence but she soon described this attraction as pure “Yellow Fever,” where males who tended to have a thing for Asian females have this perception of what the woman is supposed to act and be like. The males see the non-transcendent physical symbols and assume that the female will fit all the desired qualities they perceive with an Asian female. Although this is appalling, I have noticed similar behavior in my male friends.

First, one of my ex-boyfriends would always introduce me to his friends and family, and shortly after the introduction would insert a comment that I was Polish. His dad’s side of the family was Polish so when he introduced me in this manner to his family I was not too concerned. But unfortunately, the introduction did not stop there. I noticed he would often insert the fact that I was Polish to everyone he introduced me to and it started getting really annoying. I did not think it was appropriate that these strangers have this pre-conceived image of me before they knew my individual personality. When I finally spoke to him about this he was confused on why I was offended. He proceeded to comment that his older brother once dated an older Polish woman and had always advised him to marry a “Polack” because he could be assured he would be taken care of. This comment offended me tremendously because I did not consider myself a “traditional” Polish woman who was only going to clean and cook for their significant other. When I explained to him I had dreams to go to Law School and that I was not going to be whom he thought I was he got very angry that I was accusing him of believing all these stereotypes about Polish women.

Needless to say, our relationship did not pursue for much longer. I still believe he had these stereotypes instilled into his head, however I am no longer so sure it was necessarily his fault. After learning about co-opting and the impact media plays on the beliefs of individuals, I believe that might have had a large contribution to his perception. I know Polish people, women especially, are always perceived by the media as being the typical housewife. When the image of cooking and cleaning is co-opted, it condenses our culture, restricts other real aspects of our culture and ultimately gives a false image.

I often notice similar behavior from my guy friends who perceive certain sorority girls a certain way. Although these perceptions are passed off by word of mouth and rumors, it is still bothersome that they generalize large groups into one stereotype. It’s weird because I did not realize how judgmental I was until this class. I often find myself pre-disposing people I meet to a certain image and I have been trying to be more cautious of it. No one appreciated being identified as a generalization.

The Intent of Entertainment?

In one of the “How it Went Down” readings about Sarah Silverman, the ‘guy’, (who was an audience member) says something like, its ok if Sarah makes jokes about the Jewish community, but it is a whole different story when it comes to making jokes about “chinks.” I thought this was a very intriguing comment for many reasons.
First, it shows the double standard that our society tends to apply. Many people in class were discussing how certain jokes are appropriate if an individual of that race/religion says them and not ok if they are about a different race/religion than their own. At first this made sense to me and its like I have always thought this “social norm” without really thinking about it. I can see how someone making fun of their own identity is funny and its typically because the jokes they choose to tell are often less offensive to individuals like themselves. For example, a white person might choose to make fun of the Caucasian race with more accepting comments than if an African American chose to make fun of whites with comments that may be less accepted. Overall, there are certain stereotypes in groups of people that are more or less accepted than others and an individual making jokes of their own group will typically chose to poke fun of the stereotypes that are more accepted.
However, when I thought more about this double standard I realized that it does not really matter whose mouth stereotypes are being made fun of from. Society has a deceiving image of certain stereotypes because they have co-opted them. Often, the same stereotypes are poked fun of while other cultural aspects of a group of people go unheard. By only allowing society to hear certain stereotypes get made fun of, the comedian is almost changing the way a society perceives that certain culture. With this thought, I do not believe that anyone has the right to choose how an entire group of people’s culture is perceived by society. I don’t think it make a difference whether the person is in that group or not, that is not a privilege anyone should have.
So these apposing ideas really confuse me. I see both sides, however, I don’t necessarily feel against comedians who use these comical methods to make people laugh. After our last lecture I have come to the conclusion that I believe it’s about the intent of the person poking fun of the stereotype. This makes sense with my first viewpoint because obviously people who are poking fun of themselves don’t intend to inflict pain or offend anyone from their own race/religion etc. Also, going along with the second viewpoint, most comedians’ sole purpose is to entertain. They are not trying to condense cultures, restrict real cultures, or give a false image of a certain culture. With that said, although comedians mean to entertain, it does not mean that they don’t also do those things unintentionally. In a discussion we had in class, I thought someone made a good point when they said an individual going to the Sarah Silverman show should go knowing what to expect, and thus should not take offense to the jokes she makes. However, if a comedian goes to speak on a talk show such as Silverman did at Cannons, people are not there to be accepting towards the jokes she makes. In this case, if the saphire of the joke is not correct people will get offended.
All in all, comedians should stick to entertaining audiences with their stereotypical jokes at their own shows where audiences are expecting it, and they’re to see it. While doing that elsewhere, I think is inappropriate.

Polysemic Images

When we learned about media and symbolic representation in class, I was very interested in the concept of polysemic images. It is logical that images can have more than one meaning at the same time, but, until now, I have never realized that there is actually a defined term for it. I thought about polysemic images, and I connected it to symbols or images in a novel. When reading or analyzing a novel, people make many interpretations about what means what, and the longer the content is discussed, the more possibility there is for more interpretations to be introduced. This is because people view things in different lights, and everyone interprets images differently. What comes off as a positive image to one person may be negative or offensive to another. I feel that the meaning of images is a very opinioned thing, always open to interpretation.

I definitely thought the Dove advertisement was a great way to introduce polysemic images. In the past, I have mostly seen the Dove advertisements in magazines geared toward women. First of all, I think that it is very reassuring that the image consists of women representing a variety of races. Seeing as though it is a campaign for “real beauty,” I thought that a lot of the women featured in the advertisement were still fairly thin, as well as pretty. But then again, these adjectives, “thin” and “pretty,” can all be interpreted differently. What I find to be thin or pretty may not be your same definition of thin or pretty.

I found it ironic that this advertisement focused toward “real beauty” by using an image of a group of racially and physically diverse women, yet was actually promoting their product of anti aging lotion. To me, “real beauty” means that everyone will be accepted no matter what they look like, but Dove is trying to persuade the person that looks at their advertisement to purchase their product that is meant to combat the effects of aging skin. Really, how does “real beauty” translate to purchasing products in an attempt to stay looking young, rather than accepting the way we look in the first place and finding that beautiful?

My reaction to the Dove advertisement was initially a fairly positive one, but once I thought about the image I was seeing and actually analyzed it, I felt that the image itself was almost too perfect. However, I think that Dove did a reasonably good job with their advertisement. Their first and foremost goal is to make money, so they are going to try to incorporate this image of “real beauty” into their product in order to broadcast it, which is a great idea. The more you can communicate with “real” women about your product, the more likely they will be to try it. I think that even though they are using “real” women to advertise their anti aging lotion, the product will still sell. Women seek out beauty products in order to maintain their beauty, and Dove is simply trying to please their current customers as well as drum up new business. I think that Dove found a good balance between focusing on selling their product as well as connecting to “real” women.

Even discussing examples of polysemic images prove to be difficult, because there is so much meaning behind the images in the first place, and then there is meaning behind the opinions of those images. I am sure there are people that disagree with my interpretation of the Dove advertisement, but the whole point of it is to prove that images are polysemic, and no matter what, there will be endless possibilities of interpretations.

Indian Mascots

The idea of Indian mascots being controversial was something I never had even looked twice at. However, when I think about it, there are really no other “human” mascots except pirates. Indians are a very small minority population that has been stomped since the beginning of time. The woman from the video was offended because she anticipated a cartoon version of chief Illiniwek and that the costume was “too authentic” while the dance was a mockery of their culture. I never looked at these mascots as being offensive to the Indian population, but I clearly was wrong.

In recent news, collegiate North Dakota is being forced to change their mascot, the Sioux Indian. It was very striking to me that the Sioux Indians chose not to endorse the mascot and it forced the removal. The NCAA restricted them from post season play until all symbols were removed. The logo will be gone for the 2010-2011 season. Interestingly enough this came up about a week ago while I was working softball for the UW-Athletic Ticket Office when UW played North Dakota. According to my manager, their stadium had symbols on the backs of every chair, and the logo in marble on the floor of the stadium entrance. In essence, now 10 million dollars worth of logos must be removed and replaced. A debate sparked between my co-workers over whether it was justly done. The general consensus was that they should remove their mascot, which surprised me. One guy said, “If it offends an entire tribe we shouldn’t go against that.” After looking at it that way, I agree. I did not look at the Indian mascot as being offensive to a religion and culture which is to my own ignorance.

However, as stated in the video- if the Indian would have been funny and cartooned, the symbol wouldn’t be a big deal. At what point do we cross the line? Talk about intention was crucial to crossing that line, but I do not think there is a clear winner. Trying to be authentic caused actual offense but being made fun of also didn’t make them happy. On some level, keeping the tradition of a symbol is important to fans, colleges, and support but tradition can be changed to gain the same support. Any symbol can become important to a group. North Dakota has not agreed on a new symbol yet but les hope their next one can last longer.

American Indians as a mascot

Today we watched a clip from the documentary about use of Indian caricatures as a mascot in the United States. The part of the documentary that we saw mainly concerned experience of Charlene Teters, and her struggles of trying to deliver a message that native indians should not be a mascot.

After the clip, several classmates had made their own points and experience related to the documentary. Aside from their own experiences, some had questioned validity of Teter's claims, and if I remember correctly, I presume that they had hard time understanding why Teter was offended by University of Illinois mascot, illini.

True, on the surface, Teter's reaction towards her kids responding to Illini mascot during halftime may seem too drastic. Yet however, one could not argue against Teter for having logic behind her claims.

If we were to weigh Teter, and University of Illinois representatives and their fans solely on a subject that states "Does having native indian mascots insult native americans?" It is certain that Teter's argument will be considered more rigid.

Before anything else, she is a "real" representation of what University of Illinois is represented as in basketball games; such an irony for both Teter, and the university. It is as if followers of islam is arguing against prophet Muhammad himself, to protect their own interpretation of Koran. Although such comparison may be drastic, I believe they only differ in degrees , still applicable in terms of fundamental concept. Likewise, she has more to say in the matter than the other.

If Teter had felt differently in the past, the problem may had been avoided. Teter and University of Illinois would not have collided if Teter felt University of Illinois had presented the chief in correct terms and circumstances. Again, she is the one that is being offended, and she has every right to revolt against it. Although she may not be a representative for entire native indian population, it is certain that general opinion on the matter is not much different than that of Teter.

Even more, there already exists a previous examples such as disappearance of black caricutures in market businesses. University of Illinois misinterpreted and misrepresented native indian chief, and they used this unelaborate presentation of chief for their own benefits and purposes. How does one not listen to Teter's argument?

The media...

Recently we've been talking about media in the lecture, and there is a certain part of it that I want to discuss.
I cannot recall her name, but Angela introduced female Korean comedian who stated that the problem with Asian jokes is that there is no character; what people consider funny about Asian is not certain characteristics or habits, what's considered funny is Asian itself.
Well, I could not agree more on her comment. I could learn that all the other ethnicity jokes in the United States change in time as the society progresses, but not Asian jokes in particular. The jokes are so plain and characterless.
Asian jokes are, and they will always be the same. Asian jokes have been unchanging when all the other racial jokes, Scottish for example, have been evolving from jokes about kilt to Sean Connery, and then to something else.
Also, unlike other racial jokes, Asian jokes are not even subcategorized, when "White" jokes would be divided by nation, social class, and gender. An irony is that more number of nations are categorized as being part of Asia, compared to nations and ethnicities in Europe and North America. People in the United States do not know much about Asia except for Japan and China and the media extends such ignorance.
I spent a year as a senior in the U.S. preparatory. Despite being in Michigan, where not so many Korean immigrants inhabit, there were many Korean students. Some of them lived in dormitories and some others attended from their homes nearby.
Anyways, maybe because we were mostly immature, it was common for the most students to pick on someone else because of their race or ethnicity, and my ethnicity was no exception, and from all those names that I had called upon, I could realize how ignorant they were about Asia. It was either they could not tell difference between Japan and China, or they just did not care enough.
No matter what the truth was, it was not so much of pleasant experience. I was ok with racial jokes and never were offended in anyway because such jokes were popular and it was some twisted way of students getting to know more about each other. However, it was disappointing to realize how well average Michigan teenagers were informed or educated about Asia and various nations and cultures within.
I personally approve and agree with racial jokes. I believe they deliver feelings of intimacy or interest from one race towards another, only if used in right circumstances.
With the issue of what racial joke is allowable and what is not, I only have my own boundaries, and I do not know what would be the borderline of racial jokes should be. However, with the issue of Asian jokes, it is not even necessary yet for anyone to think of what is ok and what is not ok when joking about Asian race because most people are not educated enough to think about such, and the media prolongs such tendencies of people in the United States.

Where Sunshine and Rainbows Don't Cut It Anymore

Lately we have been talking about media and how it implants certain images about gender, race and ethnicity. I never realized how much the media has made me believe things about certain people. I like watching Family Guy which has a lot of jokes amongst the show but I can now see how certain images that they show had given me a different persepctive on items. I at first am embaressed to say that I believe in or thought that what they were saying was true, but like stated from the Sarah Silverman article, many of the jokes that people say come from what others were thinking but are not able to say.

During class we talked about two views of media within our society. One that stuck out to me was the hypoedermic model which states that the media injects in people (beliefs and values). I truly believe that this view is correct. I feel that many parents in our country allow their children tow atch very innappropriate shows at such a young age. I remember being in high school and watching the news and hearing about a young boy around the age of eight who committed suicide and thought that he would be able to come back to life, because Kenny on South Park did all of the time. How did our society get this far into thinking that it was ok to show someone killing themselves then coming back to life, as if nothing happened? Violence use is a major problem in the United States, so wouldn't the media want to stop the use of it, and help people stay away from this terrible problem?

Maybe some people in our society do not feel that everyone will take the message that way and thus they believe it is ok to portray those things? I had asked a bunch of my friends what they thought about the South Park incident and many believed that it was the parent and the kid's fault for not knowing the difference between fake and reality. I agree that it should be the parents responsibility to tell their child what would really happen, however and eight year old in my opinion should not be watching a shoe that is made for the older age group. My question is, is it good to show an ad that has a caption saying your not a man until you have a gun, or until your serving your country and killing the enemy? Do we feel that we need to teach our men and some women to be tough and not to take crap from people? Whatever happen to being able to turn the other cheek and rise above all of the violence? As a society if we potray negative things as being good things then in the end wont all of the positive things in life be totally forgotten?

Today in class it was brought up that we take things away and present people with a new idea of the world. I wonder who benefits from this if people are not seeing how the world really is? Is it the leader of our country who decides what is the best and worst for us? To me, I thought that I could come up with things to sell to people and tell how and what to believe in, considering how easy it is for our society to be persuaded. Our world is filled with more problems than just racial jokes, it goes more indepth with education, people on welfare, crime and the economy itself. If we continue to block people from what is really going on in the world then we are doing more harm than good. It is troubling to see that a lot of people now just go with the flow and do not voice a lot of their opinions? Perhaps, it is because they do not want to turned on?

The "Down Low"

“Double Lives on the Down Low” by Benoit Denizet-Lewis was unlike anything I have ever read before. What I initially noticed was that the article read like a story, which immediately made it much more enjoyable to read. I was shocked that by the third paragraph there was already a clear differentiation and segregation between the white club for openly gay males, and the mostly black and Hispanic club where men go but do not consider themselves to be gay. First of all, the two groups go to two different clubs, so no intermingling of race occurs. Secondly, the white males are willing to admit that they are gay, but the blacks will not. I was shocked to hear the reasoning behind this, that the black culture believes “masculinity and fatherhood as a black man’s primary responsibility and homosexuality as a white man’s perversion.” This idea struck me as strange, as though it isn’t possible for a black man to be gay, but it definitely is possible for a white man to be gay.
My eyebrows kind of rose when I read about what being on the “Down Low” meant. I found it so unheard of to technically be gay, but consider yourself not to be due to your particular culture’s views. It is one thing to not “come out of the closet” or seemingly acknowledge to others that you are gay, but it is another to deny to yourself that you actually are gay and refuse to put the label of being “gay” on it even if you simply plan to keep it to yourself.
I definitely agree that “looking black enough” equates to “looking masculine, tough, and “straight.” It seems as though a black man will not admit to being gay, because there is such a strong focus on masculinity, and it is viewed as though gayness and masculinity cannot go hand in hand with each other. This made me think back to class, when we talked about the idea of “doing gender,” that gender is not something that you are, it is something that you do. These technically gay men on the “Down Low,” are not gay, that they are masculine and just like to have a good time.
I find it interesting that the black culture finds the “Down Low” label to be a separation from white, gay culture. In particular, I like the response that followed Denizet-Lewis’s question of the difference between being on the “Down Low” and being in the closet, stating that, “Being on the DL is about having fun, being who you are, but keeping your business to yourself. The closet isn’t fun. In the closet, you’re lonely.” This example definitely shows that people have their own ideas about gender in their particular culture, and they find their black culture’s view on it different than the white culture’s view of gayness. The statement that really expressed the black culture’s belief on gayness reads, “It’s not like if you’re black and gay, because then it’s like you’ve let down the whole black community, black women, black history, black pride.” This statement reads as though being gay is a bad thing, and that the black community cannot take another blow to its ego.
I felt that it was a very logical idea that the black community is “simply too homophobic and views homosexuality as a curse against a race with too many strikes against it; whereas, the white community is more accepting of its sexual minorities, leading to fewer double lives, less shame, and less unsafe sex.” I also thought that the concept of gay men not admitting that they are gay because they need their family because of economic reasons and racism in particular was a very valid excuse. It was really sad to think about how black, gay men can choose to be discriminated against at home for their sexuality or discriminated somewhere else for their skin color, if they do choose to share with others that they are gay. It is not right that society is like this, and people should be able to express their sexuality no matter what the color of their skin may happen to be.
Because this article discussed the AIDS epidemic, I was thinking about healthcare, and I noticed a particular quote that seemed to express a concept dominant to the black culture, “Black people trust the church. We don’t trust health care. We don’t trust doctors and nurses, but we trust the church. So when the church says, ‘Get tested,’ when the church says, ‘Take your medicine,’ people will do it.” This particularly reminded me about when we discussed in class how institutions interact and why the health disparities among races exist. I connected this to this particular quote from the article, because if minority representation among doctors and other care positions can be increased in the health care field and facilities, black minorities may feel more comfortable getting help. Yes, the black community should be able to trust the church, but they should be able to trust health care as well.

Music

Rap music is by far the most popular genre in the young adult age group but its lyrics are becoming more and more controversial. In a time when all violence is blamed on video games, media, and movies, song lyrics are being heavily scrutinized. The documentary we watched in class give a very different insight for me on how the artists themselves view the music they produce.

The big question is how much do song lyrics really matter? When someone in a song degrades a woman and talks about her as an object, should we take offense to that? Some of the women interviewed about song lyrics calling women “bitches and hoes” were not offended, and stated “they aren’t talking about me.” I think that artists should be responsible for the words they spit and insulting and demeaning lyrics shouldn’t be tolerated. Personally, I think that certain lyrics go over the top and should make people upset. However, as stated by some of the young artists, walking into a label and talking about the hardships of the ghetto and verbalizing positive messages are not selling. The image of being strong, manly, and worthy of street respect are the artists that get deals and in a market that expects this-artists are willing to sacrifice their lyrics to get a break. As well, labels put out catchy music and tend to slide in derogatory statements in between the choruses which distract many from truly hearing what they are listening to. The only way to get around this is to find music underground and break from the mainstreams but this is much more time consuming.

The most shocking thing I think in the documentary was when Byron asked the record label if they thought the music they produced further upheld black stereotypes and he failed to comment. Pretty much he said, “Yeah the depictions of black men with drugs, money, and violent imagery allow middle class white kids further reason to distrust the young black population.” There is also discrepancy as to how “black” a lot of these rap artists are. First off, they say they are from the ghetto and get shot at, but they have millions of dollars and do not have to live that way. I find it hard to believe half of the things said in rap lyrics, especially from wealthy artists. Lyrically the use of certain slangs and swear words, especially like “niggaz,” are heavily overused and incredibly insulting. Usually, the more frequent use of a word, the more desensitized we become to it, but these words have not lost their meaning. The overuse of said words makes people believe they are okay to use in everyday language with their friends and when talking to others, yet this is not the case. Additionally, the double standard of race and slang is ridiculous. If the words “bitch, nigga, and hoe” are said within your race group it appears to be accepted, but as soon as another race uses them a word war erupts. If words like that are not okay, and they are offensive, then no one should be using them in such casual terms. The overuse of swear words gives attempts at power through intimidation, but in reality just make people sound stupid.

Other types of music are not exempt either, which makes me really question what I put on my ipod. By buying catchy music, and mainstream songs I am supporting the lyrics in that music whether I do or not. I want the music that I listen to, to represent my beliefs and attitudes which means I need to start choosing my songs differently.

For love or money?

This past week in class we were talking about marriage and the diversity that has started to come along with it. Some classmates had explained that within their communities and friend's families, same race and ethnicity was important with marriage, whereas in a community that I grew up in there was not a lot of diversity and it made no difference who was dating who. I found it rather interesting how complicated marriage has became within our society and I wonder if it matters to marry for love anymore.

In the article, “American's Have a Different Attitude” it has showed that many of the families want their daughters to marry within the same ethnicity, and that they allow the men to go around choose whoever they want. The parents wanted to make sure that the girls upheld the name. To me I believed that it should be the girl's decision about who she chooses to marry. Who says that this arranged marriage is going to work out and that it is truly what's best for the family? No one can see into the future and I firmly believe that it should be the choice of the girl. Some girls had commented on the fact that their parent's voices were in the back of their head, and that they were afraid the parents would stop communication with them. I feel very bad for people in that situation, they want to be happy, but they are giving up their happiness for their parents. I know from personal experience that my old roomate was told to take her career as far as possible, but she went on to tell me that when her parents had found her a husband she was to get married and become a stay at home mom, and she could never tell her parents that she was dating someone. I felt so bad that she wasn't able to do what she wanted in life, and that she had to put all her wants and needs aside just to make them happy.

On the other hand, there are some people that choose to marry within their ethnicity and believe that the real women are those who are from their same ehtnicity. For example in the article, “Yellow Fever,” the author talks about how some of her boyfriends or even the white men that were at first interested in her, dumped her to find a girl who was more Japenese. Many men wanted a geisha to take care of them and one who was adventourous, and many felt that American women were too independent. My first thought was, what is this the 1910's? Women no longer are stay at home wives, however there are still some women who believe that that is how they can move up in the world, by being what men want. The article goes on to say that these ideal women do what men want and that many of them are middle age white men. It makes me uncomfortable knowning that there are men still out there that want women to only take care of them.

A last topic that I believe was really interesing involving marriage is the Exchange Hypothesis, and this stated that people are willing to give up racial status for economic status. I feel like this is a big contradiction from everything that I had just talk about, dealing with people who want to marry someone from their own race and ehtnicity. Some people in the class found it hard that there are people out there who marry just for money, or to move up in the social ladder. I can't get the thought out of my mind that no one wants to be just happy and in love anymore, and that all that has become important is power and fame. Whatever happened to working as hard as you can and at the end of the day you should just be happy with your life? I feel that we should reevalute the important of things and life and see that love and happiness comes first, then success and money comes later.

"Bien Cuidada"

I was very intrigued after reading the “I’m not fat, I’m Latina” article by Christy Haubegger. The concept of a woman being described as “bien cuidada”, meaning well cared for, baffled my mind. Yes, I understand that Latino women tend to be curvier and that their culture accepts them for that, but I had not realized there was even a legitimate term used to describe these Latina, curvy women. Being white, I feel as though a white woman is not as accepted for being curvy, whereas, a Latina woman would almost be expected to be curvy. I liked how Haubegger said, “It’s the curvier bodies like mine that turn heads.” This quote almost shocked me, because it seems like white girls tend to get more attention for being thin, and a white girl can be curvy, but not too curvy or she will no longer be considered to be attractive.
The concept of there being a greater “cultural acceptance” of being overweight within Hispanic communities wasn’t as big of a shock to me as I had imagined. When I thought about it, it really made a lot of sense. Different cultures are more or less accepting of particular things, such as appearances and actions, compared to other cultures. In the Hispanic culture, curviness is embraced.
Haubegger also linked the curviness and being technically “overweight” to food and what exactly is consumed among the particular culture. The wording of, “You feed people you care for, and so if you’re well cared for, bien cuidada, you have been well fed” was kind of a stretch for me. Yes, I understand what Haubegger is saying, that it is a part of the Latino culture, but I feel as though caring for people can be shown in a different way, rather than through the use of the foods particular to the culture. I wouldn’t really be as affected by the idea of this statement had the issue of food leading to being overweight not been such a huge factor. I value my health, and I believe that if you care about someone, you should want them to live a healthy life, and it seems as though being well fed by being “bien cuidada” may be the most accepted in the Latino culture, but in the scheme of things, it is harming your physical well being.
Even though I disagree with the basis of caring for people by making sure they are “bien cuidada,” I am pleased to hear that the Latino culture is more accepting of body shapes than other cultures. It really is a shame that in 2010, discrimination seems to exist even based upon peoples’ weight and body shape. It is sad that people do not always accept others as they should, and it sometimes it seems as if people cannot put themselves in another person’s shoes, and see life from that person’s perspective. I feel as though in order to really try to understand someone, you need to look at life from their point of view, and unless this happens, inequality will continue to exist, whether it is based upon race, age, class, gender, or even weight.

"He looks Jewish..."

The recent lectures we have been having about interracial and interfaith relationship has really made me think in dept about my views on these topics. Growing up in Poland, a country with little diversity and then living in a non-diverse neighborhood in the U.S has kept me from considering interracial relationships until college. My parents, my dad especially, are very old-fashion and conservative so I always got the impression that such relationships would not be accepted into the family. Also, my dad often made racist and discriminatory comments. My dad and I often got into arguments based on stereotypes and I often wondered how it could be that I could disagree completely with someone who has raised me. It was not until recently that I have started coming up with some possible theories.
The lecture we had recently on interracial relationship and its statistics, has given me some good ideas on how and why my ideas differ so much from my parents. The stats of intermarriage differ by Group, Gender, Educations, and Geography and in those groups I already see the differences between my parents and me. Educationally, my parents finished high school and had no further education. The high school included the same people they had been going to school with since pre-school and so the lack of diversity and expending cultural knowledge is obvious there. Similarly, geography has kept them isolated their whole lives also limiting the amount of cultural difference they experience. I remember my dad telling me about how he did not see an African American person until he arrived at the U.S airport when he was 27. This goes hand in hand with what we learned weeks ago in how ones neighborhood has the ability to create boundaries and exclude them from learning about differences that exist in the world when it comes to culture and race.
Often times when I would argue with my dad, I would be frustrated because his opinions were so socially constructed and, to me, evidently incorrect. Sometimes his comments include things such as “Oh he looks Jewish,” or “What do you expect, he’s black.” I was able to relate these concepts to the theories we learned against Physiognomy, something that is still commonly believed in Poland. The Symbolic Integrationist Theory matches perfectly with the socially constructed stereotypes that my parents have. In my opinion, the stereotypes are not just because they were exposed to little diversity, but rather the symbols and labels that were present in small non-diverse community they grew up in. They had no way of disproving those labels because they were never gotten the opportunity to prove some of those labels as incorrect. For example, if they would have had the opportunity to socialize with an African American, they would have been able to disprove the label that all African Americans are lazy. Thankfully, I was able to get an opportunity to be a part of more diverse culture. When I came to college I quickly made friends with a variety of people, many of which were culturally and racially diverse. I loved this opportunity because it was a very large learning experience.
One of the most educational experiences I had was when I started dating a boy that was Jewish. Of course never having had that I found myself questioning, is this ok? Even though I knew what my parents would say, I wanted to educate myself about the Jewish culture and see how people of that culture and religion felt about interfaith relationships. It took a while for my boyfriend and I to talk about this issue because, as we later discovered, both of us felt scared of being unaccepted. I am catholic so when it came to be Christmas time I slowly started talking about religious aspects of Christmas which to say the least made very awkward conversation. One night I asked him jokingly what he wanted for Christmas, and he corrected me and said “you mean Hanukah?” It was then that I found out a lot of his views on interfaith relationships which helped me form some opinions. He told me about how against his parents were about his older brother marrying a Christian girl, but how after it happened they learned to accept it and how now they celebrate Hanukah and Christmas. This matched perfectly with the discussion we had about the consequences of interracial marriage. It was apparent that his brother’s interfaith marriage brought positive consequences to his family, and not only made the distinction between the two religions less important in their everyday lives, but also caused a reduction in the discrimination and stereotypes they held before. Now I wonder if my parents would react the same way, or if the amount of time they spend developing and holding certain stereotypes affects whether they are able to be broken.

Criminal Justice and Races

The United States statistically has the highest incarceration rates across the globe. Yet, when the divisions between races are exposed, there are large differences. As a country, racial inequalities need to be addressed differently.

Unfortunately, the law benefits the wealthy and those who can afford good lawyers. White people charged with crimes tend to serve shorter sentences, are punished less, and are often let off in exchange for community service. However, when we look at those who are in jail, it is mainly young black males. As stated previously, police officers are commended for "arresting criminals" and "helping win the war on drugs." This essentially means, go to the inner city and catch as many black males for drugs as possible. The incarceration rates for black males disproportionally sky rocketed in comparison to those of whites.

However, white stereotypes of black males are non-involved fathers, drug abusers, and overall "bad" people. Yet, when 40% of the young black males in the United States are either in jail, on probation, or some other type of watch program, how are they ever given a chance? The repetitive cycle of locking up young black males leads to a further decrease in education and puts them at a disadvantage in the job market. This also leads to a high unemployment rate within the black community. Crime rates also do not go down as a result of being in prison. After being locked up for 10 years and you have no money, a job, a house, and your family does not want anything to do with you- what are the options? Also 75% of people who are incarcerated are classified as having anti-social personality disorder which in turn basically states a general lack of concern for themselves, others, or the consequence of the law. Consequently many of those incarcerated once, will be again. Additionally, this leads to the divisions within the black population in relation to "street" and "decent" origins. When you live life in the inner city and associate police as useless, actions will reflect this. As well, most black people do not fear prison; in fact, it is a signature sign of toughness as stated in the readings.

White people are just as, or more likely to do drugs in comparison to black people but they are generally more discrete about it. White people tend to make deals within a suburban home where no one really knows about it. As well, because a lot of middle class whites smoke marijuana, the laws based around it are becoming less strict. Another reason for such high drugs abuse rates in white is the large social demands set upon them to succeed. Many white people are depressed from these demands and find drugs and alcohol’s effects to be their way out. It is even known that doctors use things like speed to maintain attention and focus during long surgeries. This "unfairness" leads to further turmoil within the inner city.

Unfortunately, I have seen the inner workings of the unfairness within the middle class. I have seen people from high school get busted for 1.5lbs of marijuana, clearly with the intent to sell, and get let off on community service and weekly drug tests. I also know someone whose house was raided by police looking for heroin, to find none, but found a bunch of marijuana and nothing happened to them. I do understand that in the grand scheme of life, marijuana is not really a direct harm to self or anyone around them, but illegal none the less. As well, I had a boyfriend in high school that got pulled over at least once a week for speeding, drifting, neons, etc and to this day I think he only has 3 speeding tickets. I do honestly believe that because all of these people were middle class white males, they were let off with slaps on the wrists.

Honestly, I think the war on drugs was one of the biggest mistakes as far as policy goes. By arresting a ton of young black males, we over filled our prison system and billions of tax dollars are spent each year to keep these people in jail. The reason so many drugs are problems, is because they are illegal. The “bad” deals that go down and things like police shootings occur because many people do fear prison and will do anything to escape. The law also doesn’t change that fact that people are going to continue to do drugs legal or not.

Additionally, prejudices based on race in the justice system also need to be addressed. Consequently of these prejudices, especially those toward black males, innocent people have been shot and killed by the police due to the suspicion of black men carrying guns. The implict association test scrambles “white and good” and “blacks and bad” as a key and then has you match the words as quickly as possible and then switch the word associations. I personally took that test in my psychology class and was a little shocked at my own subconscious beliefs in that, I wasn’t aware of them. My average time when associating “blacks and good” was higher than “whites and good.” Studies have proven that the subconscious attitudes of police officers can be manipulated by exposure and retraining the subconscious implicit associations.

The unfairness in our justice system on race based offenses is wrong and needs to be addressed immediately to save the black community from falling further.

Divisions in School

A few weeks back, class was focused primarily on what advantages are given to certain children in the school systems. Primarily it helped draw the lines of class and racial distinctions between disadvantaged youth who then fall further. The bottom line was, and is, should we divide children into “gifted and talented” programs or let them all be equivalent learners?

There has been a lot of psychology research done specifically on the development of children and how they learn that supports the idea of division. Children must be taught in their zone of proximities meaning that, in order to effectively teach children the information must not be above their understanding, or be things that have already learned. Children who are bored in school have a tough time sitting through hours of material they have already learned and spend more time socializing. Additionally, if children aren’t being challenged, they aren’t actively learning and thus are not moving forward.

However, there are social implications to dividing children which mostly hurt those who are not defined as gifted. When children are consistently told they are not as smart as other children, a mental block is formed and most children tend to believe they are not as smart. Additionally, when teacher’s expectations of children are low, statistically children perform much worse than their counterparts. This was also shown in the Riceville video clip when the children were substantially slower at the card deck when they were defined as the lower group. These divisions especially affect those who were disadvantaged from the beginning. Low SES children are generally disadvantaged in their pre-k years due to stressful family situations and lack of resources. Additionally, low SES parents are usually less educated than their middle class counterparts and thus may not understand how to teach children prior to starting school. As well, many middle class parents spend a lot of time and money placing their children in well respected day care and pre-school facilities that foster cognitive development. Competing with these prepped babies on the same level is just not feasible since their education levels are substantially different.

Yet, how can you justify not letting children thrive and succeed to their full potentials? When school systems have the resources to allow children more diverse and challenging educations, why shouldn’t they? Personally, I was divided from my math scores during the 5^th grade and those followed me throughout all of high school. I know I would not be where I am unless I had been pushed along and challenged all of high school. Our gifted group was established by my middle school principle whose wife worked in an inner city Milwaukee school who wholeheartedly believed in teaching to a child’s level of understanding. She felt it wasn’t fair to the children who showed a high level of cognitive development early on to hinder their abilities. Thus, our school system was held up by the idea of challenges, success, and excellence. Our school district upheld the belief of the “gifted” and it was tested by the school board numerous times. I was given above and beyond opportunities to dissect sharks, study plate-tectonics, read college level books, participate in math competitions, and later take college level courses. I know I would not be where I am without the class divisions I faced early on in life and thank those who fought to give me those opportunities.

However, who is to say that boy who was not chosen as a “gifted” student at 10 years old, wouldn’t have excelled in the same way with the extra opportunities? How can a teacher divide 10 year olds up and say, “Sally is college bound, while Sam….Well, he might become a plumber?” Parents always say, “You can be anything you want to be,” except when you live in socialist societies like China, whose babies are pre-determined to have careers. How is it so perfect that their predictions are almost always correct? That makes it pretty clear that the training you receive in your education can make a huge impact on the type of career one will have. This brings back the concept of a behavioralist’s approach to learning in that children are blank slates that must learn from others doing and teaching. This is the sharp contrast from the innate version of learning which emphasizes that children are pre-wired to their abilities to learn, and thus teaching before school age is a waste of time.

Overall, the socioeconomic and racial status of a family defines education of young children which follows them their whole lives. Separating children and teaching to their level of understanding is crucial to effective learning in children. Children set at the lower half of their class are destined to stay there according to current approaches yet those are the children who need the most help. Funding is the largest part holding these children back as explicitly seen in both “Life on the Mississippi” and “Children of the City Invincible: Camden, New Jersey.” I believe that there should still be gifted programs that allow children to expand their knowledge and abilities but the need to bring the bottom up is a greater concern.