Mustache World @007mustache-blog - Tumblr Blog

Ehrenreich - Nickeled and Dimed

Nickeled and Dimed is an evaluation of social conditions of "non-skilled" workers in America. Ehrenreich took on low wage jobs without revealing her academic status, and reported on those conditions of life. In this study, she analyzes the socioeconomic position of the poor and harsh conditions of the workplace. She concludes that the low-wage workers have limited options and usually are unable to achieve socioeconomic mobility.

Throughout the experience, Ehrenreich describes the economic conditions of life for people performing "non-skilled" jobs. Her descriptions coincides with the modern stratification trend of the poor getting poorer. Minimum wage has not kept pace with inflation and housing options. The wages maintained steady even though the labor market was in demand. Low-income housing is also disappearing from many cities. When life is so complicated for these low-wage workers, to the point where they can't pay for basic life necessities, it is incredibly hard to achieve social mobility.

Another aspect of the experience Ehrenreich discusses is the attitude and conditions of low-wage jobs. Her experience is best described by Marx's theory of alienation. Marx's theory describes how people start to separate themselves from their own human nature. He theorizes that the trend of alienation occurs when people find themselves to be just a rotating cog in society. In Ehrenreich's study, she found that there was alienation from the work itself. Most of the work they performed were "non-skilled" and monotonous. There was alienation from co-workers and management. The workplace became a hostile environment due to drama between co-workers and oppression from management. Employers also discouraged communication between employees. And lastly, there was a disconnect with self. Not only is the work monotonous, but many other things contribute to the disconnect with the self. Lack of appreciation from others, inability to escape poverty, and degrading employer tactics causes a disconnect with a person's self.

When I took my first job at a market, I never felt these things. But that is because I didn't have to support my lifestyle with a minimum wage job. My parents encouraged me to take a job and use the money as pocket money. As a cashier, I got the chance to interact with customers and co-workers. My outlook on the job was satisfactory because I only took the job for fun, not to sustain my life. When I would get my paychecks, I was always disappointed. Two weeks for $300 was a joke in this society. Even when my mother and I first moved to America and rented an apartment, it was $1,200 monthly-- a decade ago. I understand just how little room there is for social mobility, but never understood the alienation that occurred. After reading this, I start to see how the experience would be different if someone depended their lives on low-wage jobs.

Harris India's Scared Cow

During India's famine of the 1960s, analysts and observers alike were shocked to see photos of India that showed. No matter how Westerners looked at it, it seemed that Indian culture, which would rather starve than eat cows, is irrational. Most experts contribute this phenomenon to India's main religion Hinduism. However, in this piece, Harris seeks to justify India's behavior by explaining the economic functions of the cow.

Immediate Functions: Dairy products, Farm Work

Symbolic Functions: Tied to family finances, health and abundance, Religious symbol

Latent Functions (Manure): Used as fuel for cooking, fertilizer

My question is: based on the economic functions of the cow, what is to prevent a family from eating a cow in its old age when its cost of living outweighs its benefits? However good this explanation is, I feel that the strongest force that prevents the consumption of cattle is its symbolic meaning in Hinduism.

Symbolic interactionist would make the observation that the cow is a symbol of holiness. The meanings associated with a cow are wealth, strength, and abundance. Thus, it is taboo to make food out of such a creature. While Westerners criticize India for being illogical and blinded by religion, we have some food that are taboo to us as well. In the opposite spectrum of symbolic holiness, we have bugs-- a symbol for filth. Although bugs are consumed in many cultures, and is a good source of protein, we do not like to use it in any aspect of our nutrition. In our culture, many people would rather starve than to look for bugs as a source of food. We also have attachments to animals that symbolize companionship. It seems taboo to eat dogs and cats, and people keep their pets fed despite poor finances.

So what determines what's OK to eat in the US? Structural functionalists would say that most modern societies determine what's acceptable to eat based on function. Most developed societies eat chicken, beef, pork, and fish. These species of fleshy animals reproduce at the fastest rate and they take the least resources to survive. Chicken and cows consume vegetation, pigs have garbage disposal eating habits, and fish survive on underwater algae. They are considered the most cost and environmentally efficient animals to consume.

As for me, I select what I eat based on health reasons. Chicken provides a high amount of minerals and essential amino acids that aren't found in beef and pork. Chicken has leaner qualities, and I prefer the taste anyway. But if I imagine myself in dire straits, I'm not above eating taboo animals-- including bugs and humans. In the end, I always have to take care of #1. Perhaps It's because I try to behave in the most rational way possible.

Gracey - Kindergarten as Academic Boot Camp

In this study, Gracey examines the functions of children's education in modern society. With the title, he makes a social commentary about how socialization in children's schools is much like reinstitution in the military. His study supports the social conflict theorist view on education regarding the hidden curriculum. The hidden curriculum Gracey refers to is to socialize children to understand how to fit into our social system, which involves obeying authority figures, following orders, and competition-- many of the skills that are used in bureaucratic systems like America. Gracey quotes Durkheim's structural functionalist view that education has always been used to maintains the structure of society throughout generations.

He follows a Kindergarten teacher around and examines the daily routine that occurs in school. He comments that the kids go through a programmed day even if they don't know why. He also says that the system makes the teacher an authority figure in the eyes of the children, and they obey because of the social impact of the teacher. However, Gracey admits that the way that the education system is carried out is useful in the way that it allows the students to be prepared for the "student" role which they will have to play for a large amount of their lives.

I think the comparison between Children's education and boot camp lacks depth. According to Gracey, he finds three aspects that are very similar: 1. People do as they are told without knowing why, 2. They are taught to seek approval of authority figures. 3. Repetition of tasks. These traits describe the majority of the jobs in America, which are bureaucracies. From factories work to McDonalds, many jobs share these aspects share traits of a military institution. So in my opinion, the comparison is used for shock value rather than a well-analyzed analogy.

That being said, I do find merit in how he talks about the hidden curriculum in children's schools. These values that children learn about obeying authority figures, following orders, and competitive spirit are needed in bureaucracies of modern society.

In the recent decades, society has adopted stricter bureaucratic systems. The requirements and certifications required for professions have been raised. Being from Taiwan, my dad would complain about the redundancies and strictness of America's bureaucracies-- most of the time the DMV. He questions why some things can't just be done without an elongated process. A lot of things he complains about I have been used to since I was a child. I now know this is because he is from overseas and from a different generation. He hasn't been socialized into behaving in a bureaucratic system that we have ever since Kindergarten.

Times Before PC

These days there are so many branches of sexuality and sexuality labels that it's rather difficult for an unsuspecting cis-gender like me to distinguish. If you look at the craziness that is Tumblr, you can see how people with very specific sexualities impose or even bully people into thinking that they're bigots for not educating themselves on the various sexualities that exist. For example, if you use the generic pronoun "he", people are offended that you didn't include women. Then if you decide to include women by saying he/she, then you'd offend all the other genders who don't fit in to our culture's dichotomous genders norms. There's really no winning this war on being politically correct. I mean really, how many Americans know what LGBPTTQQHAA+ means? What's the difference between nonsexual, aromantic, and asexual? There must be some irony in how the people of the LGBPTTQQHAA+, who at one point in history dreaded the labels that society imposed on them, are now are creating even more labels to identify themselves with.

At times I wish we could go back to simpler times, I don't mean when people were only associated with homosexuality if they didn't fit sexuality norms. I mean in the culture of Native Americans tribes, where people who did not fit their biological gender roles of being male or female were recognized as two-spirited people. And unlike the discrimination people face today, the idea that these people embodied both spirits empowered them to take on key roles in their tribes. The Two-Spirit Theory is that people are usually born with either a masculine spirit or a feminine spirit. However, people who don't fit gender norms have both female and male spirits. They would be shamans and teachers because it was believed that people who were two-spirited could communicate well with people and spirits because they are able to relate to both genders.

Now I'm not saying that people who have very specific sexualities don't deserve a category, but the beauty and respect behind the two-spirit sexuality theory is, in my opinion, better than the constant bickering and need for attention that our society has today.

This is pretty much how I feel about people on Tumblr shoving PC down everyone's throats.

Required Entry: Some way I have been socialized by my gender

I actually wanted to talk about how society's image of men caused me to get a haircut while I was looking for my first job years ago, but that's your story. And plus it would just be me breaking gender norms by being superficial about how I felt so beautiful with my long hair then had to cut it off. No one wants to read about that.

Instead I want to talk about a time when I was younger when I had my first sociological brainstorm regarding gender. When I was a child, I was spoiled with toys. Not only did my mom worked at a toy company that sold cheap toys like the ones you would find in ice cream trucks, my father would always be the one to buy me toys. The reason he did that was most likely because it was a symbol of masculinity to provide for his son.

My best friend as a child was a girl whom I promised I would marry when we got older. It wasn't because I even knew what attraction was back when I was young, but because we got along so well because she was considered a tomboy, which society thinks is deviant. Our favorite toys were the Power Rangers. We would spend countless hours discussing and playing Power Rangers. She would come to my place to play with my Megazord and she would also bring over her collection of toys. No innuendo intended. One day she brought over a Barbie, as any parent would provide for their female child, and I wanted it. It's just a child's instinct to want something that they can't have. I've never had a Barbie doll before, and I felt left out.

When I went to my mother and asked if I could have a Barbie, she told me those are for girls only. I was so jealous of my best friend. I thought to myself, "Why do girls get to play with both girl-toys and boy-toys, while boys can only play with boy-toys?" I didn't understand at the time, but now I realize that it is more socially acceptable for girls to make the transition into what is considered masculine, than it is for boys to transition into femininity.

Another sociological discovery I made as a child was just as it was discussed in KW textbook-- the difference between the toys marketed for girls and those marketed to boys. To continue my story with my desire for a Barbie doll, I went to my father. He continuously questioned if I was certain, but in the end reluctantly bought me a Barbie. I likely struck a nerve with him when I asked why he can't provide me with something other kids have. After getting my hands on the Barbie doll, it only took me two days to get bored of it. A Barbie is nowhere near as interactive as my Megazord, which requires assembly and construction. The different limbs of the Megazord were like pieces of a puzzle, were you convert dinosaur robots into limbs and attach them to the core of the body. The Barbie also wasn't as fun as my NInja Turtle shells that opened up and contained a variety of gadgets. I realized after getting my Barbie that toys designed for girls are boring to me. It lacked the constructive and destructive aspects that engaged me mentally, and instead focused on the superficial, which due to my gender socialization at the time, I had no interest in.

Even from a very young age, gender socialization has impacted my decisions, either by choice or through enforcement of authority figures. They have also changed the way I think and my attitude on how I should behave as a man in America. Despite the limitations gender roles have placed on society, I feel very comfortable with my gender role, as it does not deviate from the cultural norm, and I do not live with discrimination when it comes to gender.

Tannen - But What Do You Mean?

Debra Tannen did a study on the differences in which men and women communicate. To summarize the results, Tannen found that men tend to try to speak from a position of power, while women tend to consider other people's feelings.

The things she noticed about women in conversations is that they let the speaker finish and try to include everyone in the conversation. However, they engage in uptalk, which is a way that they are looking for approval of their peers. The habits she noticed from men are that: Men control the topic of the conversation. They tend to interrupt more. Men pay less attention to the speaker.

As a man, I'd like to speak on why you would notice these habits in men. What she observed is completely true for me. However, she does not go in depth to analyze the behavior in a sociological manner. In American society, extroversion is a preferred quality in men. The people who are getting promoted, who make the most friends, mainly behave like extroverts. In regards to changing the topics in conversations, men tend to feel pressure to take the lead in conversations. American culture has socialized males into being assertive and possessing leadership qualities. It has also taught women to be submissive and quiet. So in a conversation, which is like a verbal waltz, someone has to take the lead, and if people in the conversation fit into society's gender roles, then it's usually up to the man to steer the direction of the conversation.

My personal take on why men tend to interrupt more often is as I explained with America's pressure on people to behave like extroverts. There is a pressure on men to speak up. It is possible that most times when men interrupt, they do not realize they are interrupting. If a man has something to add to the conversation before it drifts off, then they grasp the chance to contribute to the topic. This also goes into interactions with people who engage in uptalk, where they are looking for reinforcement. I often find myself saying things in a reassuring tone even though I have no confidence in the things I say. That is because society looks to men to get rid of uncertainty. Which leads to the attitude of frequently contributing to the topic at hand.

One other part that is also true is that men pay less attention to the speaker. That is also true for me, but it is because of the two reasons caused by gender socialization that I've stated above: 1. Men feel a need to steer the conversation, and 2. Men need to contribute to a conversation. When society places so much pressure on men to be successful in rhetoric, the distraction comes from within. During the course of a conversation, I struggle internally to find how to contribute to the current topic, and also how to transition this topic into another one so the conversation doesn't become stale.

In my opinion, if a man is exhibiting these habits, it is because he cares about the social environment he is in. if I was waiting in line with strangers at an airport that I'll never see again, I wouldn't say a single word, even if you tried to engage me in a conversation.

Eder - On Becoming Female

This passage was rather interesting for me. I've always joked that "Women hate other women, and they will never be capable of comprehending what it means to be a 'bro'". It always made me feel strange how harshly women judge each other, and how quickly a friendship gets tarnished by jealousy. As a man in American society, I have yet to experience the animosity between women from another man. I've always suspected that the way women behaved were based on their upbringing, but this passage allowed me to view females with a sociological eye.

Eder describes how the lives of females in our culture are based on the superficial. Females are judged daily by both men and women on their appearance-- hair, fashion, weight. In the US, there is more weight placed on the attractiveness of a female rather than their abilities. This leads to a lack of regarding women as a persons with ideas, feelings, and power. When Eder compares the life standards between the genders, she finds that females value their appearance more than males.

Ironically, even though there is so much stress placed on a woman to be physically appealing, women are criticized for maintaining their appearances as well. In today's society, the sexuality is part of what makes women attractive. Yet when they exhibit their sexuality, they are criticized for being sluts or superficial human beings. If they don't they are criticized for being lazy, lesbian, or deviant. Women are in a damned-if-you-do-and-damned-if-you-don't dilemma. Insecurities arise from being constantly judged, and often times girls start to turn against each other.

I'm happy I have a scientific explanation for my theory now. Eder does make a lot of sense. Of course I only say mildly sexist things as friendly banter amongst my friends. American culture is one that is more lenient in its expressions, and I'd like to surround myself with people who are open minded and have a sense of humor.

Henslin - On Becoming Male

Henslin discusses how gender is socialized in our culture. He argues that masculinity and femininity are products of nurture and not nature. The gender that we have associated with today are characterized by what we have experienced and been taught in our lifetimes. In his excerpt, he shows examples of gender socialization in various stages of life. Even as adults it is hard to escape the gender roles set by society, and our behaviors can still be observed in social settings.

According to Henslin, gender socialization starts even before someone's birth. The clothing selection by the parents happen before birth. As they become children, they are given gender-specific toys to play with. The way in which people interact with boys and girls differ. Any children that did not fit their gender roles were considered deviant, in which they receive negative sanctions.

As teenagers, Boys learn to be tough, while girls learn to soft and nurturing. Then as adults, gender roles play a major part in how responsibilities are distributed in a marriage. The gender roles that we assume, unfortunately shape how society approaches segregation and gender stratification. And as a man in American society, I won't be able to understand the struggles of the minority group. But I have to admit I do appreciate gender roles in society. The way I see it is that gender roles provide some sort of guideline on how to approach a happy lifestyle. A society without structure or guidelines is anarchy. Could I argue that without having gender roles as guidelines, there would be less stability in relationships and family structure? How would my own family have been if my mother wasn't nurturing, and my father wasn't focused on earning money? Being in the socioeconomic class where my mother hasn't hit the glass ceiling in her occupation, I'm not sure what reason there is for me to oppose the norms of our society.

Reflections on Discrimination Exercise

To summarize this exercise, students started together in a giant group of one, and a factor of discrimination would be announced, and if the description matches the student, then they would have to walk to the end of the room-- sometimes by themselves, in small groups, or in larger groups. The more times a student would have to walk across the room symbolized how frequently the student is "marked" with discrimination in our culture. Generally, targets of discrimination describe the minority. The separation from the initial pool of people resembles the feeling of isolation that the minority group faces. And then amount of people who walked across the room resemble the amount of representation present for the minority group in our society (although I feel there is a strong presence of LGBT representation in society despite there not being many in class).

During the exercise, when I had to respond discriminatory factors and walk to the other side of the room, I felt triumphant. In regards to being an immigrant, I am now a naturalized citizen. In regards to speaking English as a second language, I am now fluent in English with no major accent. Lastly, in regards to being fat, I have gone through many weight phases, but I am now healthy and in shape. It just seems like I have conquered all the discrimination that society has thrown at me. My relatives might be sad to hear this, but it seems like I have completely assimilated into American society.

It wasn't until the discussion portion of this exercise that I felt uncomfortable. Even though in my eyes, I see these as triumphs, I feel that the generalized other see these traits as past weaknesses rather than current success. When I had to describe these factors of discrimination to another student, I felt as if I was talking about a point in my life when I was weak. Being gender socialized as a man in American culture, I believe must never show weakness, even if it was a thing of the past.

How I react now to these factors of discrimination are rather contradictory. On one hand, I go by my Chinese name Chien even though it was officially changed to Joe in recent years-- showing my pride in being Chinese. On the other, I have to hide the fact that I was fat for the first 18 years of my life. Some females, whether they know it or not, instinctively choose partners based on genetics suitable for procreation. So when people ask if those old photos were me, I say "No ma'am. I was born with a six pack."

Reflections on Privilege Exercise

The summary of the exercise is that all students was asked a series of questions and had to move accordingly based on the nature of the question. Students were asked to move forward for the first set of questions because it reflected positive privilege, then asked to move backward for the second set of question that took away from privilege. The position where each student ended up marked their starting position in a race for the job market. It was a metaphor for how more privileged people can reach their goals easier and where people start out in life are unequal. One of the trends that was observed is that the people who start in the very back are less likely to try to reach the goal, because they don't believe they can reach the finish line. This translated to the feeling of helplessness in people who are underprivileged in today's competitive job market.

Looking at my starting place in the race, I felt pretty bad about the metaphor being made. I was pretty far off from the starting line. According to the exercise, my privileges should allow me to obtain success rather easily, yet I feel like it is so far away. There are people who are less privileged who have the same socioeconomic status as me, and I wonder if only I had struggled as much as they did, I would have already obtained everything I wanted in life.

Privilege is more like an overview of how family reflects a person's status rather than an individual's own accomplishments. As a man trying to become completely independent, this serves as a reminder of how much my family has impacted my life, and how thankful I should be to my parents, despite our minor family issues.

KW 9.6

It's actually been a while since I've been to a toy store. What's the point now with online shopping and Walmarts right around the corner? I feel the nostalgia of buying Playstation games before starting my task. As I look around, Toys R Us is surprisingly similar to how it was nearly a decade ago. A section for gaming and electronics in the front. Sports equipment, bikes and board games in the very back of the store. And before all of that are many isles filled with toys with gender specific targets. The store is clearly separated between girls' toys and boys' toys. From a sociological mind, we can't simply blame the toy stores for organizing their store to make it more accessible for their customers. We have to look deeper into how Toy manufacturers facilitate gender socialization by creating and advertising toys based on gender.

Not only are the shelves separated, but the packaging of the toys themselves show a difference in color. Boys toys have darker, shiny colors, but girls toys have light, pastel colors. For the most part, there is a difference in content between the toys marketed for boys and those marketed for girls. The ones marketed for boys are Lego, Hot Wheels, Nerf Guns, etc. While the ones advertised for Girls are Barbie, Easy Bake, stuffed animals, etc. Whether or not these toys are actively engaging a child's mind is up for debate, but they facilitate the gender roles in different ways. Boys toys tend to lean towards having the children be constructive and destructive, while girls toys require children to take on nurturing roles and focus on the superficial. These differences are marked by the words on the packaging. The ones used to describe boys toys are: action, battle, power, heroes. Then for girls, it's: magic, baby, hair, outfits.

The majority of the toys have distinguishing factors to indicate which are marketed for boys, and which are marketed for girls. In fact, aside from the gaming section and sports equipment section, there are only four isles in the back that are not gender specific, which is only about 10% of the entire store.

My task was to find a toy that was unisex, and to be fair, I wanted to show that the world isn't an inherently sexist place. So I tried to find it in the most convenient place possible. I found Yo-Yos, coloring books, and Play-Doh in the misc island-shelves throughout the store. Sure, they didn't have their own isles (Play-do probably has a whole other section), but they were still visible to every customer as they walk through the store.

The socialization factor of children's toys has a major impact on children. However, I believe gender roles are so deeply rooted in American society that it isn't up to the toy manufacturers how they should market their toys. In the business world, there are professionals who take care of advertising and revenue. These are incredibly capable people who has it down to a science which toys advertised in which way will make the most money. The corporations are only making products based on their popularity with the customers. Other socializing agents such as media and family steer toy companies to create products for separate genders, thus facilitating gender socialization in our culture.

KW 8.10

In more recent years of American culture, people have adopted the color-blind racial ideology to deal with racial differences. It seems like equality for everyone, but in actuality, it is the refusal to address race in matters of conflict. It follows the logic that if society does not notice race, then we can't act in a biased manner. Even if we were taught to not act on prejudice, latent discrimination still occurs in many aspects of American culture. The white flight movement is an example of segregation that occurred when white people decided to move away from the cities and into suburbs-- leading to discriminatory actions like redlining. Durkheim suggests that racism is a social fact and does not require actions of any individual to maintain it. Society itself maintains racism, and not addressing color only leads to unresolved tension.

It is definitely important to address color in the workplace and in American society. Just today I watched a news report regarding affirmative action for a university in Texan that has spaces reserved for certain races. Students sought to abolish the University's policy of prioritizing the admission of minority groups. Affirmative action is a controversial aspect that resulted from attempting to undo the wrongs of America's history. However, in practicing affirmative action, it discriminates against the majority group while favoring the minority group. This creates a contradiction of how the actions used to practice equality is unequal by nature. In the workplace, hiring practices might be unintentionally discriminatory. In cases such as Abercrombie stores, or Las Vegas Casinos hire race-specific in order to fit their brand or the theme they are advertising. I remember touring Vegas and I noticed only Asians were employed at Mandalay Bay casino, only Caucasians in Wynn, and blacks and Hispanics in Treasure Island. The discrimination is not meant to harm or prohibit any opportunities, but still happens regardless of color-blind ideology.

Personally, the way I have been socialized to handle race is by channeling the golden rule, well, actually the Chinese version of it from Confucianism. It states: What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others. It is a proscriptive folkway to not act on prejudice, since prejudice can lead to discrimination, which I would not want for myself. Being the model minority, I have never faced the negative effects of prejudice when it came to my race. However, as a chubby child growing up, I understand certain aspects of how it feels like to face discrimination and prejudice. It would be automatically assumed that I was bad at sports, the one who fart must've been me, etc. My parents have never taught me not to have a racist mind. In fact, they encouraged it. Bringing a black girl home would be the end of my family ties. My personal opinions on the different races and ethnicities are a product of the ideas engrained in American culture. However, my experience with prejudice allows me to sympathize with other minority groups and make sure that I never participate in unnecessary discrimination. My observations of the negative sanctions regarding racism also factors in to my behavior.

On a personal level, I would not contribute to rethinking the color-blind ideology. Not only do I believe that there are many consequences to bringing up sensitive topics regarding color, I also believe that there is not much benefit to voicing my opinion on how color functions in our society. A white high school student in Texas voiced her opinion on affirmative action in Universities, and faced backlash as it was negatively reported on the news. At the end of the day, I'd have to agree with Durkheim, that racism will still exist in society with or without individual actions.

KW 7.1

When I followed the link to the New York Times webpage, I was surprised to see that there actually was a section dedicated to "Economic Crisis and Market Upheavals". A lot of times when I pick up a newspaper, I read the front page story, look at some sales ads, then finish off with the funnies. Occasionally, I would read pieces about college students or Asian American, because those are my areas of concern. The reason I don't read all the abundant amount of information in a newspaper is because they typically do not directly affect me. At first, I felt guilty for not particing my civic duty to stay informed, but when I read three articles from the "Economic Crisis and Market Upheavals" section of the New York Times, these articles confirmed to me that I was right to have skipped these articles in the first place.

In an American society, where the 1% of the population owns 1/3 of the nation's wealth, the social stratification structure clearly unbalanced. In fact, the wealth gap in the US is larger than any other country in the world. Back in the Golden Age, taxes on the rich were 92%, and the ideology back then was for the rich to give back to society. Unfortunately, in the past decades, the American ideology regarding wealth has shifted to the point where greed is good. This new concept of the past decades is prevalent in the articles regarding "Economic Crisis and Market Upheavals" in the New York Times. Justice Department Sets Sights on Wall Street Executives is about prosecuting the corporate Wall Street criminals. The Problem with House Prices was about how banks set unrealistic mortgage rates which ruined millions of lives. Then lastly When Jon Stewart Took Down CNBC's Jim Cramer was about how Jon Stewart was brave enough to challenge dirty politics (bribes) by exposing information on his show.

What do all these articles have in common? The corporate misdeeds of the elite negatively affect the economy for the middle class and creates more poverty in the US. The America we live in now is where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. This is a troublesome pattern that occurs in the US, and the most frustrating thing is that the middle class and the poor do not have the power or luxury of devoting their lives to make changes. In that regard, I feel the frustrated with the information of these articles, as I am powerless to fix the greed of the elites. As social conflict theorists would say, American capitalism is a system that the elites created to benefit themselves. For example, representatives in government are funded by the elite, which means Corporate America will always have influence on the representation.

These articles, although very different in content, revealed to me that the practice of greed, to the point of corporate crimes, among the elite damages the US economy for the average citizen. While I understand that corporate crimes might seem easier to commit, because they are impersonal, or achievable through a few keystrokes on a computer, these corporate crimes affect the lives on millions. That is why their actions are considered to be economic crises.

Table of Contents

Deviance

Making Connections: My experience as an outlaw Leonardo Dicaprio characters as viewed with Strain Theory Labeling Theory Rosenhand Experiments

Social Stratification

Stratification Systems of Stratification Functions of Stratification The Uses of Poverty: The Poor Pay All

Race and Ethnicity

Page - Showing My Color The Racist Mind Intergroup Relationships Asian Americans in The US

Sex and Gender

Henslin - On Becoming Male Eder - On Becoming Female Tannen - But What Do You Mean? Times Before PC

Education

Gracey - Kindergarten as Academic Boot Camp

Work and Economy

Marriage and The Family

Exercise Reflection

Reflections on Privilege Exercise Reflections on Discrimination Exercise

Required Blogs

Required Entry: Some way I have been socialized by my gender

K.W. Assignments

KW 7.1 KW 8.10 KW 9.6

Asian Americans in The US

I've always known the reason why my family relocated to the US. My mother's company relocated our family to the US so that she can oversee import and export functions at the company's main factory in the US. She was convinced by her boss that America was a great place to live and I would receive a better education. The most important factor that finally convinced us to make the move is the fact that Asian culture could be found in many cities in the US. Asians also don't face negative discrimination in California, where we've resided for over fifteen years. When we moved to the US, we lived in a city called "Rowland Heights", my American hometown. The population of Asians in Rowland Heights is well over 50%. Now the question is, where did all these Asians in America originate from? I'd hate to say it because it has a negative connotation, but we're just part of the bandwagon effect. Without Asian immigration throughout the years, there is no way my family would have felt comfortable relocating here.

It all began with the large scale immigration of people from China, who came to the American West during the Gold Rush to work on the construction of the railroads. Their intention was to earn enough money in America to support their families in China. However, they were met with obstacles and hatred from white people. In the end, most who came looking for opportunity stayed because they could not afford to go home or afford to relocate their families here. The Japanese started a large migration to the US (mainly Hawaii), but the Japanese government was aware of the harsh conditions the Chinese faced, so the negotiated better terms for the Japanese immigrants. Korean and Vietnamese large scale immigrations followed. Koreans gradually moved, while Vietnamese people poured in after their government had fallen.

Currently it seems like Asians suffer from being labeled the model minority. Although previously hated for being capable and taking American jobs, Asians are now seen as reaching educational and professional levels without challenging American society. This however, seem to cause a strain for many of the Asian population who do not meet the positive expectations, which, ironically still causes discrimination.

My aunt co-owns a bubble tea cafe in Rowland Heights. Come by the city if you want to see a city where Asians are the majority population. (and just how annoying they are)

http://www.yelp.com/biz/little-bean-rowland-heights

Intergroup Relationships

Throughout history, sociologists have observed six different type of intergroup relations. Intergroup relations characterize the relationship between groups of people-- generally based on ethnic or racial backgrounds. The difference in tolerance and intolerance range from combination of cultures and race (amalgamation) to extermination of groups (genocide). The intolerant takes on intergroup relations are likely by-products of colonization when people needed to justify murdering, pillaging, and rape.

Genocide is the systematic slaughter of entire groups of people. The holocaust is the most notable based on American History, as it did not produce a negative image for America. However, even the foundation of the United States was a product of genocide. America is what it is today because of two major acts of genocide: colonization and slavery.

Expulsion refers to when groups of people are forced out of an area. During World War II era, Roosevelt placed an executive order to isolate people of Japanese ancestry into internment camps. The Japanese-Americans were forced out of their homes to live isolated so that they can't participate in espionage, even though there was no proof of it.

Segregation is the physical and social separation of groups. De Jure is when separation occurs by law-- notably the Jim Crow laws of confederate states after the Civil War. De facto segregation is by choice, and this can be seen when it comes to black and white neighborhoods in certain regions of the United States.

Pluralism is represented by separate cultural identities while maintaining social equality. This is known as the salad bowl model of America, where each culture maintains their own identity and adds a special flavor to the bowl. This is what is considered to be ideal. However, it seems impossible due to racial tension throughout American history.

Assimilation described when a minority group gives up its own identity and take on characteristics of the majority group. Can be seen based in the immigrants to the US who adapt to American language and culture.

Amalgamation is when the minority group and majority group combine to make a completely new group. This is the melting pot model of America. This is commonly seen through interracial marriages.

The Racist Mind

In this excerpt, Raphael Ezekiel interviewed a member of the Klan named Raymond. He pretty much concluded that the racist mentality don't follow any distinct patterns. In Raymond's case, it was a mixture of violence, competition, and ideology that was passed down from a previous generation. Raymond also had a role model who was Adolf Hitler.

Ezekiel was horrified with the violence aspect of Raymond's personality. Raymond would happily tell stories about beating up Jews. He also believed that genocide was acceptable. He easily said that, much like the breeds of dogs, only the purebred are accepted, and the mutts should be gassed.

The aspect of colorism also comes into play, when Raymond explains his thoughts on interracial sex-- comparing sleeping with black people with bestiality and homosexuality. In Raymond's eyes, white people were superior to black people.

Without much explanation of where Raymond picked on his ideological views, Ezekiel suspected two possibilities. First is the primary agents of socialization. Ezekiel traced racist roots back to Raymond's grandfather. The attitudes and experiences of his grandfather was passed down through generations and had a strong impact on all members of Raymond's family. The other is the Nazi ideology that was founded by Raymond's idol, Adolf Hitler. The fact that there was an already established system of beliefs and doctrines in place allowed for Raymond to easily absorb and practice neo-nazism.

With his research, Ezekiel understands that racism is deeply embedded in our culture and affected the way we think. As of now, it would be impossible to live without racist undertones. However, the patterns and extremities of racism throughout society do not correlate with each other.

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

Mustache World