"According to the World Health Organization (1995), poverty is the single greatest cause of ill health in the world today: " (p 205) Although I realized that poverty had an effect on a person's well being, I never realized it was the leading cause of health problems. My first reaction to this was one of guilt. After realizing that poverty, and food shortages are all caused by people, and not natural phenomenas, made me feel as though there is more that I can do to make this world a better place. It made me extremely disgusted with with wealthy countries, when I found out that they could easily afford to provide sufficient supplies to poor countries to keep them in good health. In 2005, the United Nations declared that only taking 1% of the total income of wealthy countries would end world hunger. The United States currently only provides 1/5 of that 1% . It seems that helping the ill and poverty stricken just isn't any one's top priority. Why?
I am still struggling with why America wouldn't give the full 1% when other countries are donating even more then they are. Is it that we can't afford it? the United Nations declared that it was "utterly affordable". So what is the real answer? After reading this chapter thoroughly, I still haven't found it. Does any one else have any ideas as to why? Does it have to do with the war that has been going on in Iraq? Is there ever a good excuse to let numbers of people die each year for reasons that can be controlled?
When I was reading about the discrimination of health care based on an individuals race, class, and sexuality, I became infuriated. I couldn't believe the terms that were used, such as "green screen", meaning that a person's financial situations was more important then their clinical information when it came to being wait listed for an organ transplant. WOW! How is that not illegal? It certainly reinforces the belief that "money makes the world go round". Apparently health care clinics believe that person's of a certain race are destined to have the same financial background. Look at all the Chinese people that were at the hospital for probably days when the American was brought to the front of the line, because they thought there was a better chance that he would be able to pay them because of his race/ethnicity. My attitudes have totally changed toward the health care system after reading this. It gives me further belief that I shouldn't be trusting of health insurance companies, or even doctors, or hospitals. It is sad when the people that are supposed to be there to help you, are the ones that you need to be wary of. Whoever though your class position, race, etc... would determine your health care needs?
There were a few different topics in the reading that I did find interesting. One was a term they used known as the sick role. It basically describes the fact that each society has a certain set of expectations that people need to meet when they are sick. If a person does not behave this way, then they are not considered sick, or considered that they want to get better. It talked about how women in the 19th century, if wealthy, were considered to be very delicate beings that always needed bed rest. The lower class women were considered tougher, and were thought to have "thicker skin". Still to this day, women are more susceptible then men are to be labeled sick. Pregnancy, childbirth, menopause, and menstruation have been medicalized or pathologized. This means that normal biological events in women's lives were considered to be problematic and in need of medical attention. The medical world has even coined the term Premenstrual Syndrome to explain why women get moody, or depressed right before or during their period. The social world now uses this as an excuse to blame sudden mood swings on menstruation. I always here women and men use that excuse to explain their partners, or their own behavior. There are even shirts that have the saying, "Don't mess with me, I have PMS". This just further perpetuates the cycle that women are allowed to act a certain way just because of a normal biological function.
Overall this reading was really informative. It seemed the author really tried to make an emotional connection with his readers. He really wanted them to realize how it is for people of a certain race, class or sexuality. He definitely succeeded in doing so from my point of view.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Friday, October 5, 2007
Reading Reflection #5
"Hey-wait-a-minute! ... You're not a Jew, are you?!" (pg 149) Wow, the author totally let us see a different side of him in this chapter, Expressing Inequalities. Apparently this topic really hit home for him. Having someone question your religion at such a young age can be life changing, especially when that person also threatens your safety. I really was glad to see the author giving us a little bit of his life stories, it made the read more enjoyable, and I was able to see things from his point of view as well as my own.
My first reaction to his story was one of rage. I really wish I could have been there to stop that other child from hitting him. I couldn't believe that something like that occurred without any thing being done about it. Of course that was a different generation. But was it? This generation also experiences hate crimes, such as the Jena (6) incident where nooses were found hanging from a tree in a prominently black and white high school. Those nooses were not considered hate crimes, but a school prank. We haven't come as far as we think we have.
The author really painted a clear picture for me by giving the definition to stereotypes. I had an "Alright!" moment when I read that people use stereotypes in order to see our social environment as a more understandable and manageable place. We are always defining classes and other groups, which in response creates a fulfilling prophecy of some kind. This needs to stop! It is a never ending cycle that continues to loop around, and will eventually strangle us. It really isn't necessary to classify people into groups, whether they are being seen in a good light or not,which is called the "model minority". For example, the stereotype that all Asians are smart. A compliment? Possibly, but still a stereotype none the less. It is when these stereotypes become unfavorable judgements on our behalf, they are known as prejudices.
After I read the piece on racial transparency, I have totally changed my beliefs. I didn't honestly think that whites never experienced racial tensions, but institutionally I guess they really haven't. I hate the fact that being white means I don't have to worry about certain things that others do have to worry about. Now I will look for opportunities where I can change this.
Overall this chapter was very insightful, and the author's point of view on the subject was very refreshing. Hopefully he continues to do this in future chapters.
My first reaction to his story was one of rage. I really wish I could have been there to stop that other child from hitting him. I couldn't believe that something like that occurred without any thing being done about it. Of course that was a different generation. But was it? This generation also experiences hate crimes, such as the Jena (6) incident where nooses were found hanging from a tree in a prominently black and white high school. Those nooses were not considered hate crimes, but a school prank. We haven't come as far as we think we have.
The author really painted a clear picture for me by giving the definition to stereotypes. I had an "Alright!" moment when I read that people use stereotypes in order to see our social environment as a more understandable and manageable place. We are always defining classes and other groups, which in response creates a fulfilling prophecy of some kind. This needs to stop! It is a never ending cycle that continues to loop around, and will eventually strangle us. It really isn't necessary to classify people into groups, whether they are being seen in a good light or not,which is called the "model minority". For example, the stereotype that all Asians are smart. A compliment? Possibly, but still a stereotype none the less. It is when these stereotypes become unfavorable judgements on our behalf, they are known as prejudices.
After I read the piece on racial transparency, I have totally changed my beliefs. I didn't honestly think that whites never experienced racial tensions, but institutionally I guess they really haven't. I hate the fact that being white means I don't have to worry about certain things that others do have to worry about. Now I will look for opportunities where I can change this.
Overall this chapter was very insightful, and the author's point of view on the subject was very refreshing. Hopefully he continues to do this in future chapters.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Observation #2 "They said I look like a boy because I have short hair"
The after school program I work at has some diversity within it. There are some African American children, and some Hispanic children also. There are also some whose primary caregiver is their grandparent, or adopted parents. I thought I would more then likely deal with race and class issues before dealing with gender issues. I guess I was wrong. The other day a fourth grade girl with short hair came up to me. She looked extremely sad, so I asked her what was wrong. She said that two boys at her table had said, "girl that looks like a boy" when addressing her about something. She then began to cry. She said how people everywhere, even elderly people in grocery stores sometime thought she was a boy because of her short hair and how much it hurt her. I felt so bad for this little girl. I basically sat down with her and told her how girls can be beautiful and feminine with long or short hair. I told her how earlier that day I saw a women at my school who was bald, and how she was beautiful. I also told her how there were many girls out there that had short hair for many reasons. It's easier to care for, it doesn't get in the way, and during the summer it doesn't stick to the back of your neck. So there were a lot of pluses to having short hair. After I had made her feel better, I decided to go talk to the two boys that had said she looked like a boy. I brought them out of earshot of the other children and began by asked them if what the little girl said was true. They admitted to it, which was a start, but then began making excuses. They said how sometimes other people had called them girls before and that didn't bother them, that they thought it was funny. They thought what they had said was a joke. I explained to them how much they had hurt their peer, and they did feel bad, not to the extent I probably would have liked, but still nonetheless it was their idea to go and apologize to her. The reason I spoke out against the short hair incident, is because I didn't want the two boys to think that it wasn't okay for girls to have short hair. I wanted them to know that it was perfectly acceptable. I really didn't know how else to tell them what they did wasn't nice, and that girls can have short hair and not be mistaken for a boy. Does any one else have any ideas at what I should have said?
This event was significant in that it really opened my eyes to how much gender is still an issue in everyday life, even in educational systems. This event really was oppressing in that overall it involved boys telling girls they couldn't have short hair or else they looked like a boy. In their mind, girls had to have long hair. I didn't know fourth grade boys could be sexist? Being part of this event has made me more attuned to what is going on around me, including peoples side conversation. Yes, nosy, I know, lol. I just want to find out how every one thinks about gender. I pick up on responses people make in public about things as well. Sense that incident I have noticed how in a movie theater, a girl coming into one alone is more likely to sit next to another group of girls, then a single guy. Or if there is a seat in beside a girl and a guy, a girl will usually take the one next to the other girl.
This event was significant in that it really opened my eyes to how much gender is still an issue in everyday life, even in educational systems. This event really was oppressing in that overall it involved boys telling girls they couldn't have short hair or else they looked like a boy. In their mind, girls had to have long hair. I didn't know fourth grade boys could be sexist? Being part of this event has made me more attuned to what is going on around me, including peoples side conversation. Yes, nosy, I know, lol. I just want to find out how every one thinks about gender. I pick up on responses people make in public about things as well. Sense that incident I have noticed how in a movie theater, a girl coming into one alone is more likely to sit next to another group of girls, then a single guy. Or if there is a seat in beside a girl and a guy, a girl will usually take the one next to the other girl.
Reading Reflection #4
"Social reality is not an inherent feature of the natural world but is instead a human creation, established in a process of ongoing social interaction" (Newman, p 108).
My first reaction to the reading was one of confusion. The personal story within the reading was about two parents trying to socialize their children androgynous. This means they wanted to bring up their two twins, one female, one male to have both male and female traits and behaviors. They wanted to break down the gender barriers that some parents create when raising their children. The author clearly points out that parents cannot "create" their children's identities, yet just two paragraphs down, he states that "We create, re-create, confirm, or change our social identities every time our actions, appearances, thoughts, perceptions, and values are taken as reflective of or in contrast to what others expect of us" (Newman, p 108) I understand that he is trying to say we create our own identities, but he is also stating that other people effect it, which includes our parents. I think that parents have a lot to do with a child's beliefs on gender, sexuality, race and other large issues within society today. Throughout the book Newman expresses his beliefs on how adolescents look more to their peers for acceptance then their parents. Isn't that in itself a stereotype? I know many children/young adults that would rather make their parents proud then be apart of the "crowd". I agree that peers are a major part in some children's lives growing up, and eve turn into family, but there are certain incidences where that is the total opposite, and some see friends come and go, but their parents were always there.
After I read chapter 4, I totally understood how hard it was for certain classes to succeed in the school system. The classes seemed to be broken down into races and beliefs, not just economic standing. I understood why some parents would want their children to go to segregated schools because they want them to have a rich heritage, or have a higher ability to succeed. Although I don't agree with that, I understand some people's strife's. One African American women put her reason she wanted segregated schools very clearly. "Integration? What was it good for? They were just setting up our babies to fail" ( quoted in Winter, 2004, p 27) (Newman, p 141).
It is extremely heartbreaking to read this, but I understand why this mother said that. In this chapter, the statistics alone back up what she is saying. It is sad to say it, but because minorities are so oppressed in this society, they are the least likely to go on to college after high school, or even finish high school.
One point of view that should have been included by the author was what he thought we could do to change all the stereotypical behavior in schools about gender. After reading about the studies that proved the majority of schools treated girls differently then boys, I thought Newman should have commented on what society could do to change this. It is important to get every one's feedback on social issues such as this.
My first reaction to the reading was one of confusion. The personal story within the reading was about two parents trying to socialize their children androgynous. This means they wanted to bring up their two twins, one female, one male to have both male and female traits and behaviors. They wanted to break down the gender barriers that some parents create when raising their children. The author clearly points out that parents cannot "create" their children's identities, yet just two paragraphs down, he states that "We create, re-create, confirm, or change our social identities every time our actions, appearances, thoughts, perceptions, and values are taken as reflective of or in contrast to what others expect of us" (Newman, p 108) I understand that he is trying to say we create our own identities, but he is also stating that other people effect it, which includes our parents. I think that parents have a lot to do with a child's beliefs on gender, sexuality, race and other large issues within society today. Throughout the book Newman expresses his beliefs on how adolescents look more to their peers for acceptance then their parents. Isn't that in itself a stereotype? I know many children/young adults that would rather make their parents proud then be apart of the "crowd". I agree that peers are a major part in some children's lives growing up, and eve turn into family, but there are certain incidences where that is the total opposite, and some see friends come and go, but their parents were always there.
After I read chapter 4, I totally understood how hard it was for certain classes to succeed in the school system. The classes seemed to be broken down into races and beliefs, not just economic standing. I understood why some parents would want their children to go to segregated schools because they want them to have a rich heritage, or have a higher ability to succeed. Although I don't agree with that, I understand some people's strife's. One African American women put her reason she wanted segregated schools very clearly. "Integration? What was it good for? They were just setting up our babies to fail" ( quoted in Winter, 2004, p 27) (Newman, p 141).
It is extremely heartbreaking to read this, but I understand why this mother said that. In this chapter, the statistics alone back up what she is saying. It is sad to say it, but because minorities are so oppressed in this society, they are the least likely to go on to college after high school, or even finish high school.
One point of view that should have been included by the author was what he thought we could do to change all the stereotypical behavior in schools about gender. After reading about the studies that proved the majority of schools treated girls differently then boys, I thought Newman should have commented on what society could do to change this. It is important to get every one's feedback on social issues such as this.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Reading Reflection #3
"So what are you going to ask Santa to bring you for Christmas?" pg 72
Imagine such a simple question during the holidays offending someone? Sometimes I just don't understand what all the "necessary" precautions are for regarding religion. People take things too seriously sometimes. What is wrong with saying, "I'm sorry but we don't celebrate Christmas"? Yes, we should respect the people that are not religious or do not celebrate Christmas, but we should also understand that there are others out there that do. I guess this stirs up some memories from last year. I have worked at the same after school program for two years now, and the school that we are in does not allow the children to perform any acts of gift giving or Christmas activities. It is as though they totally ignore some of the children that actually do celebrate this holiday. They do learn about Kwanzaa, and Hanukkah however. I believe all these religions are important and should be touched on. When did it become not okay to have Christian beliefs in the school? All beliefs should be respected.
This also makes me think back to Tim Wises essay, "Honky Wanna Cracker?" It talked about how using honky wasn't as significant as using the "n" word. I guess my sentence just proved that true. The fact that I can write honky, but not write the other racial slur makes it even more obvious. Although I do not believe that blacks, institutionally can be racist, I do believe that both whites and blacks can make hateful politically incorrect remarks. Both are signs of disrespect and should not be used. No remarks of that kind should be accepted, just like all religious beliefs should be.
Imagine such a simple question during the holidays offending someone? Sometimes I just don't understand what all the "necessary" precautions are for regarding religion. People take things too seriously sometimes. What is wrong with saying, "I'm sorry but we don't celebrate Christmas"? Yes, we should respect the people that are not religious or do not celebrate Christmas, but we should also understand that there are others out there that do. I guess this stirs up some memories from last year. I have worked at the same after school program for two years now, and the school that we are in does not allow the children to perform any acts of gift giving or Christmas activities. It is as though they totally ignore some of the children that actually do celebrate this holiday. They do learn about Kwanzaa, and Hanukkah however. I believe all these religions are important and should be touched on. When did it become not okay to have Christian beliefs in the school? All beliefs should be respected.
This also makes me think back to Tim Wises essay, "Honky Wanna Cracker?" It talked about how using honky wasn't as significant as using the "n" word. I guess my sentence just proved that true. The fact that I can write honky, but not write the other racial slur makes it even more obvious. Although I do not believe that blacks, institutionally can be racist, I do believe that both whites and blacks can make hateful politically incorrect remarks. Both are signs of disrespect and should not be used. No remarks of that kind should be accepted, just like all religious beliefs should be.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Observation #1 "That's so retarded"
I believe a lot of the time we don't think about how it's not only race, gender, class, or religion that people discriminate against. There are also the mentally, physically and emotionally disabled. The other day while I was walking to my human behavior class, I noticed a large group of people pointing and laughing at the way a student on campus was running. In my opinion this student might be somewhere on the Autistic spectrum. I am not an expert by no means, but I do know some about Autism because my nephew is Autistic. This group of people were also students. There were about six or seven in the group. To see this type of behavior made me sick, but what made me even more upset, is that I didn't say anything. I just watched, which is even worse then committing the action. I knew it was wrong, and I just kept walking, rather then stopping to tell them that it was wrong. I regret that so much. This event is significant because it brings to light that there are not only derogatory terms used against people because of their race, sexuality, gender or etc... There is also terms out there against the disabled, like when someone says, "That's so retarded". They may not mean it to be mean toward that group of individuals, but society has labeled that as being acceptable language to use when something upsets you. This event sustains a state of oppression because it shows how society continues to close itself of from the "abnormal". We are only hurting ourselves by doing this. Not being open to individuals with different ways of thinking and living is in reality us oppressing ourselves. In fact I know that this student that group was laughing at was extremely intelligent. I had English class with him two semesters ago and he was one of the best writers in the class. He had a great sense of humor too. Afterwards all I could think about is how I could have just ignored it. Why did I do that? This isn't the first time I have done it, and I don't plan on ever doing it again. No one deserves to be laughed at no who they are. It isn't something I believe in. Laughing at someone because they are different then you isn't right, and those of us that know it isn't should speak out. I know I would want someone to do that for my nephew if any one ever did that to him. That is why I will never just stand by and watch ever again. When something like that hits closer to home you finally understand the impact it has.
Reading Reflection #2
"My father was a Negro! We were colored! After ten years in Virginia on the white side of the color line, I knew what that meant" (Williams, 32) My first reaction to the second chapter, "Manufacturing Difference" in Newman's Identities and Inequalities was one of intrigue. After reading about Gregory Williams experience with being white in Virginia and black in Indiana really opened my eyes. How confused he must have been as a child, adolescent and young adult growing up. What color did he mark on his college entrance forms? Because Gregory was multiracial it excluded him from everything to do with the black and white community. No one wanted to except someone into their "culture" if they were bordering the line between Caucasian and African American. The most empowering aspect of this story is that Gregory ended up overcoming such a major obstacle in his life, and became a lawyer and a professor. He did not let his socially defined role as neither white or black effect his identity. He had the strength to identify himself as being multiracial, and the best part is he is proud to be so.
I definitely had an "Alright! Now I understand" moment when reading this. The chapter discussed race through a scientific perspective, and a social one. It basically cleared up for me that there isn't a gene that 100% of African Americans have that Caucasians don't have. It explained how race is more of a social aspect then anything else. "The meaning of race, gender, class and sexuality, therefore are fluid, socially or politically determined, and historically or culturally specific" (Newman, 37) Newman also discussed in this chapter how Americans tend to use essentialism, and split people into groups based on their differences. There was a part in the text where Newman mentioned a Vietnam girl coming to him in one of his classes he was student teaching in, and telling him how in Vietnam all people see only Americans, not black, white, Asian, etc... She related a persons race as the same as being fat, skinny, tall or short. Imagine if everyone in the world could think like that? The construction of race and ethnicity also made a lot of sense to me, and made me realize how people create an identity for themselves. People learn that each group has certain boundaries that distinguish one group from another, each group has a social position, and finally your group is either proud to be who they are or ashamed to be themselves. This made me extremely sad. Other groups are making the minorities feel this way. It's almost scary to think about how one group has so much power over the other. I also learned how race can depend on your social class. Some white people were referred to as black because they were poor and considered lower class and vice verse. People are using the term white as if it is good, and powerful, while doing the exact opposite with the word black. The funny thing is no one is the exact same color as someone else. There are different shades of black and white, and so many in between. How is it possible to group together and say this one is white and this one is black? It isn't humanly possible to do it accurately. We should be able to learn to live and celebrate diversity and who we are. Maybe one day we will.
After reading this article I decided when I come across a question asking about my race, I am going to put human, sense there is only the human race. Maybe if enough people do that, they will stop asking the question altogether on any entrance or census form.
I definitely had an "Alright! Now I understand" moment when reading this. The chapter discussed race through a scientific perspective, and a social one. It basically cleared up for me that there isn't a gene that 100% of African Americans have that Caucasians don't have. It explained how race is more of a social aspect then anything else. "The meaning of race, gender, class and sexuality, therefore are fluid, socially or politically determined, and historically or culturally specific" (Newman, 37) Newman also discussed in this chapter how Americans tend to use essentialism, and split people into groups based on their differences. There was a part in the text where Newman mentioned a Vietnam girl coming to him in one of his classes he was student teaching in, and telling him how in Vietnam all people see only Americans, not black, white, Asian, etc... She related a persons race as the same as being fat, skinny, tall or short. Imagine if everyone in the world could think like that? The construction of race and ethnicity also made a lot of sense to me, and made me realize how people create an identity for themselves. People learn that each group has certain boundaries that distinguish one group from another, each group has a social position, and finally your group is either proud to be who they are or ashamed to be themselves. This made me extremely sad. Other groups are making the minorities feel this way. It's almost scary to think about how one group has so much power over the other. I also learned how race can depend on your social class. Some white people were referred to as black because they were poor and considered lower class and vice verse. People are using the term white as if it is good, and powerful, while doing the exact opposite with the word black. The funny thing is no one is the exact same color as someone else. There are different shades of black and white, and so many in between. How is it possible to group together and say this one is white and this one is black? It isn't humanly possible to do it accurately. We should be able to learn to live and celebrate diversity and who we are. Maybe one day we will.
After reading this article I decided when I come across a question asking about my race, I am going to put human, sense there is only the human race. Maybe if enough people do that, they will stop asking the question altogether on any entrance or census form.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)