Welcome to Sociology of Discrimination
- Differences and Similarities
- Manufacturing Difference
- Portraying Difference
- Learning Difference
- Expressing Inequalities
- Inequalities in Health and Illnesses
- Inequalities in Law and Justice
- Inequalities in Economics and Work
- Digital Stories
We don’t experience our everyday lives through just one lens; rather, we experience all elements of our identity - race, class, gender, sexuality - simultaneously. In this class we will acknowledge this reality and bring to light the importance of studying the intersections of race, class, gender, and sexuality, both as elements of personal identity and as sources of social inequality.
We will develop a comprehensive, practical understanding of the legal, ethical, and behavioral issues involved in interracial and cross-cultural contacts between societal officials and a diverse citizenry. Sociological frameworks are used throughout the course to allow for the examination of diversity with respect to age, gender, sexual orientation, poverty, religion, age, disability, and language minorities.
Dr. Michael Thompson
Similarities and Differences
By: Travis Geile
Discrimination in everyday life can come from anywhere, anytime from anyone. It has been around since the dawn of time and it’s something that we aren’t able to erase completely. Race, ethnicity, religion, sex, whatever it is, it most times will spin out of control. When people begin to physically take part in hate crimes due to discrimination is when it gets ugly. But what is the effects of all this. We know there are always consequences for peoples actions.
It's tough being a teen. Are you in or are you out? Are you hanging with the right crowd? Are you dressing and talking and acting the right way? For adolescents who are ethnic minorities, on top of this quest to "fit in" is the added layer - and the burden - of dealing with discrimination, say UCLA researchers.
In a new study, the researchers found that adolescents from Latin American and Asian backgrounds experienced more discrimination than their peers from European backgrounds and that the discrimination came not only from other adolescents but from adults as well. The level of discrimination also impacted these teens' grade-point averages and their health and was associated with depression, distress and lower levels of self-esteem.
For the study, lead author Virginia W. Huynh, a graduate student in the laboratory of Andrew J. Fuligni, a professor of psychiatry at the Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior at UCLA, recruited 601 high school seniors, equally divided between males and females, and asked them to maintain a daily diary for two weeks to record any discriminatory events or comments they experienced. They were also asked to separately record on a four-point scale any physical symptoms, such as headaches, stomachaches or general pain.
Among the teens in the study, nearly 60 percent reported experiencing discrimination from other teens, and 63 percent reported discrimination from adults; 12 percent reported experiencing discrimination on a daily basis. Adolescents from Latin American backgrounds reported more adult discrimination than Asian Americans, who, in turn, reported more adult discrimination than teens from European backgrounds. Latin American and Asian American teens also reported higher levels of discrimination by their peers.
The researchers found that teens who reported higher levels of peer or adult discrimination also reported more aches, pains and other symptoms, as well as a lower overall grade-point average. Thus, discrimination may not only tax adolescents' physical and psychological resources but may also affect their ability to achieve in school, the researchers said.
"These are the years when social identity is arguably more salient among teenagers who are struggling with defining who they are," he said. "Adding on a 'layer' of discrimination is not an easy thing for them to deal with."
By comparing the amount of discrimination the students experienced with their ratings of their physical well-being and their grades at the conclusion of the semester, the researchers were able to examine the relationship between discrimination and health among the adolescents.
The study furthers the understanding of the normal development of ethnic minority and immigrant adolescents, the researchers say, because it shows that adult and peer discrimination may have implications for adolescents' physical health.
"Discrimination significantly predicted lower GPAs, higher levels of depression, higher levels of distress, lower self-esteem and more physical complaints," Fuligni said. "So the bottom line? Discrimination is harmful."
Funding for the study was provided by a grant from the Russell Sage Foundation. The authors report no conflict of interest.
University of California - Los Angeles
Similarities and Differences
In chapter one, Similarities and Differences, we will briefly discuss several sections. Every Day Life: Drawing Lines, Classified Information: Forming Impressions and Variations between Groups and Variations within Groups. Due to the limit of 600 words, this paper will cover the main points of each section as needed or just give a brief description.
Every Day Life: Drawing Lines
This section of chapter one explains through clichés how everyone is different and why it is a good thing to be different. Yet at the same time it explains why we are all the same and why it is a good thing as well. If we were all completely different, the world would be a much different place than what it is now. No one would have the same background, religion, skin tone, name, experiences, nothing at all! Yet we live in world where we are all different yet similar at the same time. We live in a “stable”—used loosely—chaos. We can relate to one another in our geographical region, it comforts us to think that there are people out there that have the same likes and dislikes, same passions and fears . Even though wars are held over religion or money—sometimes women—the majority of the world’s population gets along with one another.
Classified Information: Forming Impressions
This particular section is something that is interesting to me. Forming impressions at a young age and throughout our whole lives. How we all categorize people based on a small amount of information, such as a first impression or a phrase about the person. How we act to different genders to achieve goals, either for an occupation or personal goals and how our concept of a person is made based on their age alone. How throughout our elementary, junior and high school years, we categorize people to a specific group or term instead of general group or term
Variation between Groups, Variation within Groups
The section is about variations, obviously, he brings up a very interesting point. The point being that we almost never look at other ethnic groups in depth unless asked too. We generalize the whole population with stereo-types. Yet when we look into our own ethnic group we specify to what seems like the smallest detail. We also distinguish between economic groups, such as rich and poor. We care about such things for monetary gain, like lowering or raising property values of the neighborhood.
As stated in the introduction each section was either covered with the main points or just given a brief description. These three section, personally, seem to be the most important out of the chapter. Each can relate to the individual more so the ones I left out of this paper. Each of these is something that we deal with every minute of every day, with or without consciously knowing we are coming to these conclusions. If you think about how you see people walking into a building for class or work, you doing just this, everything covered in this paper, very quickly, very minutely and possibly very unknowingly. I hope I have given you something to think about next you walk to class.
By Matthew Espinoza
Newman, David M. Identities & Inequalities. New York: McGraw Hill, 2007. Print.
Similarities and Differences
By: Chelsea Warta
There are many similarities and differences in everyday life and history that everyone looks past and beyond and don't realize it is really happening. For more than a century we as the people have come to believe that we accept change and believe it's for the best, but if we stop and take a look this country has been racial, ethnic, religious, sexual, gender-based, or class based similar and different at times. We believe that we all believe in the same god in some sort of way but at the same time we discriminate on other cultures that call God something besides God. Everyone needs to stop and and know when to draw the line, know how to form an impression, and have a variation within groups.
When drawing the line you must know how to realize that not everyone person is the same and that you shouldn't follow any one person because they are “cool.” Follow your own beliefs and not come to a conclusion based on someone else belief. This is where you should be different than someone rather than similar.
As you began to learn how to form an impression stop and think before you began to define, classify, or categorize another person because they are probably doing the exact same thing to you. The other person is usually trying to figure out what about you is similar to their self and what is different. No one realizes it but we began to define one another from just a distance.
There are many different variations in groups or “cliches.” The variations fall within race, class, gender, and sexual diversity. These are the things that we first began to differentiate on when first meeting a person. The differences that show between groups show in men and women, the working class and upper class. Everyone is looked at different even though they have many things in common. You may think you are just like one of your best friends but in reality you are the complete opposite and the person you are most like is a complete stranger. You may realize this but at the same time you may realize that within the group or people you hang out with how many of them are of a different race or sex? Do they follow the leader or live their own life and be their own person? These are many questions that need to be asked about every person that we meet and come across. The similarities in people that you don't know may be just the same as you. Your friends may not even be different that others that you judge and pick and choose their similarities and differences out before even meeting them. Is all the hassle really worth the trouble. Why not treat everyone the same and not nit pick at a person based on a simple impression or their looks.
Newman, David M. Identities & Inequalities. New York: McGraw Hill, 2007. Print.
by Drew Posegate
When implementing NAV in manufacturing companies, I’ve sometimes heard complaints that the type of manufacturing supported in NAV doesn’t fit the customer needs.
And sometimes that’s completely true. NAV supports discreet manufacturing, and it handles it pretty well. But the things do get bumpy when you venture into process manufacturing world.
Sometimes customers or even consultants don’t really understand why this happens. It’s simple: there is a big difference
between process and discreet manufacturing, and to successfully implement NAV in these two fundamentally different environments you need to understand and appreciate these differences.
The biggest difference between these two distinct manufacturing universes is that results of discreet manufacturing can be easily reversed, while with process manufacturing there is no way to do it.
With discreet manufacturing you manufacture countable stuff that can (mostly) be disassembled into the parts it’s made of. A car, for example, is produced in pieces, and if you fancy, you can disassemble it and put it back on shelves as components that can be used to build another car tomorrow.
With process manufacturing you typically manufacture uncountable stuff that cannot possibly be disassembled back into components. You can’t unscramble scrambled eggs.
With discreet manufacturing we talk about bills of materials; in process manufacturing we have recipes. In discreet manufacturing we have operations that put the stuff together; in process manufacturing we have processes that change physical, chemical or mechanical properties of components.
Homosexual Discrimination and Homophobia
By Robert Glover
One of the major manufactured differences of homosexuals and straight-oriented people is the tendency for straight people to fear that every homosexual person of their same gender is attracted to them. This distorted thinking causes many straight people to be uncomfortable with gays and lesbians, or even disgusted. This attitude toward homosexual behavior is called Homophobia.
Avert, an international information charity organization that helps raise awareness for sexually transmitted diseases, cites that Homophobia is not just an attitude held in America, but also world-wide. “It was estimated that in 2005 a gay man was killed every two days in Latin America because of his sexuality,” and that Latin America is seeking legal action to protect lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT)people. “The Indian government is also taking significant action to address the severe persecution of LGBT people living in India. In July 2009, a landmark decision was made to abolish the law that criminalizes homosexuality.” “Criminalization of homosexuality remains strong in more than half the countries in Africa, and gay people face persecution and violence from police, employers, hospitals and community organizations.” “In Turkey, although homosexuality is legal, it is still very much taboo. Human Rights Watch have urged for stronger protection measures for LGBT people in the country, following the murders of at least eight transgender people in a two-year period.”
The main thing to keep in mind about homophobia at home and abroad is that the idea it represents is based on judging a person’s future actions before you know who they really are. Just because a homosexual of your same gender is sexually attracted to people who share your gender does not necessarily mean they are attracted to you in particular. It also does not necessarily mean that they should be treated any different than an opposite gendered person that is attracted to you, but that you are not attracted to. It also does not necessarily entail that people who are homosexual do not have feelings or insecurities about their sexuality or do not care about your orientation.
In a front-page article headlined “Is McCain Like Bush? It Depends on the Issue,” the New York Times (6/17/08) managed to locate “striking differences” between Sen. John McCain and George W. Bush on several issues—in spite of contradictory evidence reported in the very same article about the two politicians’ overwhelming similarities on these very issues.
In the article, reporter Elisabeth Bumiller writes that “on the environment, American diplomacy and nuclear proliferation, Mr. McCain has strikingly different views from Mr. Bush.” Yet Bumiller offers little evidence for these supposedly striking differences. In fact, on the environment, she points out that while McCain has called for limits on greenhouse gas emissions, he “has a mixed record on the environment in the Senate — he has missed votes on toughening fuel economy standards and has opposed tax breaks meant to encourage alternative energy.”
Meanwhile, despite Bumiller’s claim about McCain and Bush’s “strikingly different views” on diplomacy, an accompanying chart includes “Diplomacy with Iran and Syria” as an area where Bush and McCain "mostly agree. ” As the chart observed, “Like the president, Mr. McCain has ruled out direct talks with Iran and Syria for now. Mr. McCain supported Mr. Bush when he likened those who would negotiate with 'terrorists and radicals' to appeasers of the Nazis, a remark widely interpreted as a rebuke to Senator Barack Obama.”
Bumiller's claim for "strikingly different views" on diplomacy rests on a quote from McCain: “We cannot build an enduring peace based on freedom by ourselves, and we do not want to…. We have to strengthen our global alliances as the core of a new compact.” Does Bumiller really think that Bush speaks out against the need for strengthening alliances, such that rhetoric endorsing such alliances really constitutes a marked break from him?
The chart lists "climate change," "oil and energy," "federal spending," "interrogation tactics" and "arms control" as issues on which McCain and Bush “mostly disagree.” Yet on climate change, McCain has joined Bush in opposing the most important international effort to date to tackle the problem—-saying that "America did the right thing by not joining the Kyoto Treaty"—and insisting that any global accord must include China and India, as the chart acknowledges.
Some of the Times’ examples of McCain taking a stance different from Bush’s are on issues where McCain has actually flip-flopped, and has come around to Bush 's position. While interrogation is identified as an area on which Bush and McCain “mostly disagree,” the chart notes that McCain’s actual voting record has overwhelmingly supported Bush on rationalizing the use of torture techniques like “waterboarding” in interrogations: “He voted against a bill to force the Central Intelligence Agency to abide by the rules set out in the Army Field Manual on interrogation,” and helped pass a 2005 law that “gives the president the last word in establishing specific permissible interrogation techniques.”
I believe that McCain is similar to Bush because they are both white males from rich families also Republican. Having some age against the other democrats, they are both very conservative and all they wanted was more oil, energy, and money
By Lawrence Williams
When I think of Manufacturing Differences I think of people judging others based on race, geography, or age. Manufacturing Differences in my opinion is very natural to humans; assuming and having pre conceived notions about others. I don’t think this is right but I think everybody has been guilty of this at least once in their lifetime.
“We have a high percentage of blacks in prison, and that’s tragic. But are they in prison just because they are black or because they don’t want to study as hard in school? I’ve taught school, and I saw a lot of people of color who didn’t study hard because they said the government would take care of them,”
“You see women usually don’t want to work as hard as man because women tend to think a little bit more about their families, wanting to be at home more time (and) have a little more leisure time.” -Sally Kern
To conclude I think assuming things about others is never right under any circumstances. You should never judge anyone tell you took a walk in their shoes.
BY: FREDDY ARELLANO
Every person has their own identity and express their own personality. Although each person probably does not spend that much time trying to figure out how they got their own identity or who helped them along the way to develop it. No one really stops to think what made us a male or female if it is our chromosomes, genitals, or a matter of self perception or self definition. Does a person really know what makes them heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual? Then there is the question on how a person knows if they are upper class, middle class, or the working class? These are very hard questions to answer.
A form of thinking called essentialism focuses on what we believe to be universal, inherent and unambiguous. An essentialist persons views believe that people are either homosexuals or heterosexuals. The views of essentialist can be used to justify unequal treatment and maybe even subordination of one group to another.
There is an alternative to essentialism which is known as constructionism. Constructionism argues that what we know to be and essential is always a product of culture and historical period in which we live. From this perspective it is known that mammals don't exist in nature. Basically if a living thing is warm-blooded, has skin that is not fully covered in hair, and nourishes their young with milk they can be described as a mammal. This is where we mistakenly put a dolphin in the category of a fish instead of a mammal.
It is said that from the time we are children we are exposed to cultural messaged that teach us that our life is not fixed. Everyone is capable of being who or what they want in life as long as they have the drive to “be all they can be” and actually take time out to do the exact things they need to get on their own path in life. It is no ones decision on your sexuality or where life is going to take you. Much of the decisions based in life we seem to think are taught to us but in reality they are what we want not what others want. Some of these factors may be biological but it's all a matter of opinion. One thing that your parents to have an effect on while your growing up is your social class. If a person a higher education they will have a better paying job and have a better ability to show their child love and provide adequate health.
There are many things that may or may not have an effect on a persons life, but all these things are just leading factors on where a person is going to end up sexuality or their social class level. A person will grow in their own and become who they are meant to be. A person may or may not know what they will end up in life when they first start out but eventually everything will fall together.
Newman, David M. Identities & Inequalities. New York: McGraw Hill, 2007. Print.
The article I chose for manufacturing difference is from http://www.survivalblog.com/2006/12/city_versus_country_mindsets_a.html. It tells from the point of view of a person who grew up in a small town what city people are like, and how their outlook on life differs from small town people’s outlook on life.
City people have a fundamentally different approach to life. They have high expectations for their lifestyle: the power doesn't go out, the water is hot in moments, the mail comes every day, and the supermarket is full of food which is fresh and exotic. City people work, usually very hard in often humiliating jobs to pay for a tiny apartment, a high car payment, and those luxuries they've grown used to. Their view of the country is from a 75 mph window on the way to somewhere more scenic. City people want it all now, and they don't want excuses about why they should have to wait. Don't blame them for this. The city is a very competitive place and it is our nature as a species to compete for resources.
City people see the countryside as a source of food, of momentary scenery, and as real estate, future subdivisions and Wal-Marts, Taco Bell and McDonalds. They can't help that. They hate the emptiness. It makes them afraid, or bored. They're used to the frantic pace and tight quarters that the city offers. The countryside is slow cycles and peace and quiet, for the most part. I was raised at the edge of a subdivision in the middle of the countryside, surrounded by cows and rangeland. We often had deer, and sometimes had coyotes, wild pigs, and I once witnessed a mountain lion scurry by in the early evening. Now I live in the suburbs, which is basically the city just with smaller apartments.
I relate to the author of this article and agree with him. His views are pretty much the same as mine, and also probably similar to the views of most people that grow up in a rural community. Small town people have created this view in our heads about how city people act and why they act in that way.
Sociology: Races and Discrimination Wiki-Project #2
By: Blake Steiert
Colby Community College: Proffessor Michael Thompson
For this Wiki-article I chose to do the term “Manufacturing Differences” and for the subject of this particular topic I chose an article on McCain and Bush. The article is titled, “Manufacturing Difference Between McCain and Bush
NYT exaggerates areas where GOP leaders "mostly disagree".
“In a front-page article headlined “Is McCain Like Bush? It Depends on the Issue,” the New York Times (6/17/08) managed to locate “striking differences” between Sen. John McCain and George W. Bush on several issues—in spite of contradictory evidence reported in the very same article about the two politicians’ overwhelming similarities on these very issues. Meanwhile, despite Bumiller’s claim about McCain and Bush’s “strikingly different views” on diplomacy, an accompanying chart includes “Diplomacy with Iran and Syria” as an area where Bush and McCain "mostly agree. ” The chart lists "climate change," "oil and energy," "federal spending," "interrogation tactics" and "arms control" as issues on which McCain and Bush “mostly disagree.” Similarly, the first example of McCain and Bush “mostly disagreeing” on energy and oil is their alleged differences on drilling. The Times notes that “Mr. McCain opposes drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, once a top goal for Mr. Bush.” Actually , McCain’s position on Alaska drilling has been inconsistent (Extra! 5-6/08); most recently, in 2005, the senator voted to support drilling.”
In conclusion to taking a sociological view-point to manufacturing differences when reading this article and understanding it, it speaks of the positive differences McCain has from Bush and how it would be benefitial to have him as president over Bush.
By: Chris Leth
Osama Bin-Laden was born in Saudia Arabia. He is the 17th child of 51 children. His father Yameni Porter, whom became the wealthiest construction magnet in Saudia Arabia.
Bin-Laden married his 15 year old first cousin in 1974. She was the first of 4 wives. He has fathered more than 20 children.
While in college Osama was introduced to “transitional jihad.” In 1979 Osama left Saudi with other Muslims after the Soviet Union invaded the country. He became a guerilla fighter raising money and fighting against the Soviets. Bin-Laden created Al-Qaidia to help remove the Soviets from Afghanistan. In 1989 after the Soviets left Afghanistan Osama returned a hero. A year later he was expelled for being with a terrorist group.
The first attacks Al-Qaidia had against the United States was the bombing in Somalia when they bombed a hotel where U.S. troops were staying. In 1993 they bombed the World Trade Center. In 1996 Osama declared war on the USA. On September 11, 2001 Osama and Al-Qaidia were behind the planes that crashed into the world trade center, a plane hit the Pentagon and a third plane was crashed into the ground in Pennsylvania. Over 2,992 people were killed in this attach.
May 1, 2011, ten years after the attack on the USA, Osama- Bin Laden was shot and killed by US Navy Seals team. Osama was given a speedy Muslim burial at sea. DNA and photos were taken to prove it was Osama that was killed. President Obama has decided that the pictures and video will not be published.
BY: SADIE JARRETT
A symbol is something used to represent or stand for something. The symbol can be a physical object such as an engagement ring. There are many things that stand as a symbol simple thumbs up can stand for everything is ok. Symbols are a power part of everyday life and have an effect on our social structure. There are many people that interact with other people around them with a symbol to allow them to know how they are doing or to answer a question.
Slurs are used to create and enforce social inequalities. Each race, nation, and religion has their own type of slurs that mean different things to them. Even a small group of friends have slurs that they understand that another group doesn’t understand. There are many slurs that we learn early in life that we understand even if we don’t use them in everyday life. There are sayings that we use as a child such as “sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.’’ These slurs in our childhood language are used as a comeback to teasing. There are some slurs that can be very harmful or hurtful.
Different genders can have a distinct different between the two of them. Adding certain endings to words can change the meaning of a word to be towards a female or a male. we have a very gender biased vocabulary and it reflects in our societal beliefs and can determine a role of a female or a male. There has been a movement for gender equality but is has been battled for a while over language. Now a days people have tried to challenge the nature of language to make it a more fundamental way of life.
When it comes to language it can change just through ethnicity or race. Each race has their own language whether it be English, Spanish, French, or German. Different words can have good meaning and can have bad meanings all at the same time. The word black can be a symbol of shame or darkness. The difference between the words white and black can have a major effect on a child as they grow up and can make them think that they are at a different superiority then those of other races.
Language can be potentially harmful and is very visible in schools. There have been e-mail policies made for language so it is not harmful to others. Words can be very hurtful and need to be thought over before they are said or even typed out. I would not want to get an email that I thought was offensive because it may be very harmful and hurtful. Words “break my bones” because usually it is words that people use now to hurt a person rather than physical behavior. An attack of words should not be allowed and should be against the law in my own personal opinion.
Newman, David M. Identities & Inequalities. New York: McGraw Hill, 2007. Print.
By Chelsea Warta
You may portray differences within one's race, class, gender, and sexuality within language or the media. Language is a major part of anything in today's world. It can show one's personality or even represent who they are. Language is like a symbol and is a very powerful symbol. The symbol of language can be interpreted in many different ways and at times can be good or may even be bad. It can bring forth feelings that weren't been to be brought up, intimidate a person, or used to separate people that have a unity together.
Language can also be different and have issues that are common to gender, race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. An ending of a word can be distinguish if a word is more so towards a male or female. There have been movements of gender equality throughout history and they always go towards a way that women and men are treated equally and much of this has to do with language. If we look beyond gender we come across race and ethnicity. Throughout history white has always been a sign of good and black has been a sign of bad. When we take a trip through history and go back to the era of slaves black people were bad and white people were good. This is the differences that came through history. People were no longer looked down upon but when it came to the color black was bad and white was good. For example, in westerns good guys wore white hats and bad guys wore black hats.
Every person has their own sexual preferences whether they like guys or girls. When it is stopped and looked at “gay” is assumed more towards a male and “lesbian” is assumed more towards a female. Your sexual orientation can have an effect on a political view and become very delicate to your background.
The most strongest person can emphasize and differ or be the same as you in a certain way. When it comes to language it might be one of the best ways to have flaws or strengths pointed out. We can determine by a person's accent where they are from or where they were raised, but can't really tell by one's voice or language if they are upper class or lower class. Although you can tell by language from what time period a person grew up in. there are many words that our grandparents or even parents grew up saying that are no longer even in our vocabulary. Then there are words that we say that our grandparents and parents look at us and think that we are completely crazy.
Language is a major party of society and can allow anyone to figure out the little things about you. They may not be able to figure out your life, but it's a start. They can come across their first impression, around the time period you were born or even the where about of where you grew up at.
Newman, David M. Identities & Inequalities. New York: McGraw Hill, 2007. Print
This chapter, almost in its entirety it seems, is about defining one’s self from many different areas. I will cover 3 areas of this chapter, one very briefly, due to the nature of the restrictions of this paper, being 500-700 words long. The sections I will cover are as follows; Learning Genders: Biological Predispositions, Learning Genders: Gender Training, Learning Social Classes.
Learning Genders: Biological Predispositions
Richard Udry concluded in his study of “351 adult women whose pregnant mothers had been entered in the Child Health and Development Study between 1960 and 1969”, that biological predispositions have an effect of, limiting, gender socialization. He found that the children who had higher testosterone while in the womb showed more masculine traits and behaviors then the children who did not have as much testosterone while in the womb. Other researchers have done studies dealing with the fundamental development milestones. They have found some interesting things about the milestones, such as males are usually the ones to start the milestones first, that a child who begins the crawling stage in the winter months will start to crawl later than a child who starts the stage in the warmer months of the year.
Learning Genders: Gender Training
This particular section in the chapter states that gender typed expectations are extremely ingrained in one’s mind and actions to the point that we might not even be aware we are imposing these gender typed expectations on our children. Parents communicate differently to different gendered children, talking about sadness with girls and anger with boys. These expectations are brought about by, obviously, people close to the child-parents, siblings, grandparents etc. They can manifest in subtle ways to the quite obvious, such as clothing, toys and phrases. The clothing is not just to tell other people that she is a girl and he is a boy, they inform the child that dresses are not for running around, but the loose, non-restrictive boy clothes are. Toys are very hard lined to gender roles, boys have things such as G.I. Joe and play guns while girls have toy jewelry and barbies. Phrases are a large part of this, listen to a two and three year old talk, they will copy the parents. “Big boys don’t cry” and “Act like a young lady” are phrases that are perfect examples of how children are supposed to act via gender roles.
Learning Social Classes
At first glance, social classes may not seem to be a part of one’s self identity, but it is rather important for any person to know and understand where they fit in the world, in this social structure. The way the rich, moderate and poor look at life is vastly different, one is practically trained for their role in society while the others have more subtle or dramatic teachings for their parts that they will play.
The sections in the chapter seem to be, in my opinion, some of the more important sections, however briefly put in this paper. This is something we all have dealt with, knowingly or unknowingly and some us may even be doing it now with our own children. I hope this has given some insight to learning differences.
By Matthew Espinoza
Newman, David M. Identities & Inequalities. New York: McGraw Hill, 2007. Print.
BY: FREDDY ARELLANO
A persons sexual anatomy has something to with our gender identity. Researchers have attempted to uncover the biological underpinnings of gender by examining differences in behaviors or male and female newborns and infants. The differences in male and female development usually begin to show in the first year of a child's life. The researchers argue that boys tend to reach development earlier than girls. A boy tends to be more independent where a girl tends to be more nuturant and interested in relationships with the people around them. Some of these differences are effected by the way they are treated and raised as they are growing up.
A child's development is based on their parent's. Some of the differences that occur in boys and girls are based on how they are treated growing up. A boy and a girl are usually treated differently growing up. A parent communicates with their sons differently than their daughters. Parents are more likely to be more passionate and talk about sadness with their daughters are more so talk about anger with their sons. As a parent raises their children they tend to be more rough with their sons and actually try and get them into physically sports, such as football or wrestling. A parents daughter may be more pushed towards cheerleading. Parents don't realize that they are doing this but it is a natural instinct to begin this early on in life and try and make their sons very masculine. It is not as likely to see a female doing wrestling or football or a male doing more feminine things.
The differences in a male and female usually is shown to a person early on in life from their exposure from different children, parents, siblings, or their significant others. All these people have a great role on a child or a grown adults life. Different families have different believes and may raise their children completely different than the family living right next door. It all is a matter of opinion and depends on how each person was raised. Many different behavior are learned until adolescence of a child life and are not fully emerged until then.
A parent usually does not teach a child about sex. Sex is something learned from the presents of an older sibling or a child peers. Any information learned is not usually taught by parents. It may be awkward for a parent to sit down and talk to their children about it so they tend to avoid the subject.
There are many things a child needs to learn as they grow up. Much of it is taught by parents, but the information not taught by a parent is picked up throughout a child life. A parent tries to teach their children the difference between right and wrong and their roles in life. Daughters and sons are treated differently, but this is how they learn their role in life. Parents are the major factor of a childs life and always will be.
Newman, David M. Identities & Inequalities. New York: McGraw Hill, 2007. Print.
By: Justin Harris
It is come to be known and learned that social reality is not an inherent feature of the natural world but is instead a human creation created with many people using social interaction. Every person has their own social identity when it comes to their action, appearance, thought, perceptions, and their different values in life.
Society looks at everyone different and at times may believe that members of everyday society should create their own fundamental tasks based on their values, behaviors, attitudes, and perceptions so that they correspond with society and are seen as appropriate. Upon doing this it can become known as the process of socialization. Meaning that people will learn how to act in accordance to the rules and expectations of a particular society.
The most important aspect in learning the difference in different aspects is the roles between gender. It is wondered where gender traits and behaviors come from. Does a female act or have a different out look in life then a male does? This is a question you may ask yourself but in reality our sexual anatomy does have something to do with our identity. We have gender expectations that are ingrained by our parents as we grow up and become the person we are. Sons and daughters are treated differently all because of their gender. Parents are usually more sensitive and caring towards their daughters where with their sons they tend to be rougher and more interactive in physical play. A daughter get a pet name to be soothed such as “sweetie” or “honey” versus “tiger” or “bud” when it comes to their son. Parents may not realize it but if they were told or had it pointed out to them is it a possibility that they would be treated equally.
When it comes to the gender of a parent's child they usually tend to gender-socialize their children. Boys are more likely be able to rough around in the mud and run around with their shirt off on a hot sunny day. A girl is more likely to go to another girls house to have a tea party or go to the park to swing and have to wear clothes that cover up basically everything. Also, when it comes to being gender socialized a parent will buy a boy cars and trucks and a girl gets a doll or a barbie. Are these things the best way to look at society. Should a parent treat their daughter different then they treat their son? This question can be all the matter of an opinion because some people may say yes and some people may say no. When it comes down to it no one can probably come to an actual agreement and belief. Although, many people may feel that a daughter should be treated differently than a son. In the case that a daughter may be more sensitive than their a parents son.
Newman, David M. Identities & Inequalities. New York: McGraw Hill, 2007. Print.
On our birthday we enter into the world as clean slates. As our eyes open and our first breath is taken and we have no knowledge of hate, intolerance, or indifference. It does not matter to a baby what color of skin the person has who is taking care of it, just that its needs are being met. So the question is when do we notice that we are or others are different? When do we decide it is ok to let our differences of others turn into intolerance and hate?
Since humans are not born with prejudice thoughts and ideas, the reasoning is that society is responsible for the learned behavior. Parents, teachers, peer groups are where children learn their attitudes and values. According to social learning theory, is that prejudice is learned through association, reinforcement, and modeling. Association is by learning to associate different ethnic groups by crime, violence or other bad things. Reinforcement is when it is accepted by their peer groups to make jokes or derogatory comments about others. Children will model their parents or older sibling’s prejudicial behavior.
From early on children are watching their parents interact with others and pick up on the prejudices they may have. Research has shown the close relationship between the ethnic attitude of the parent and child. As children grow, their peer groups become more influential. Since mostly people of social and economic groups associate together the prejudices of that group are the same, thus the passing down to generation to generation of intolerance.
The media has a role to play in how our prejudice is formed. Movies and TV help to reinforce the stereo typing of society. If you are not thin, beautiful or rich you are an outcast. If you cannot play a guitar or play some sort of sport you can’t be popular. Black people and white people are usually accessories in a predominately white male world in movies. What does this teach our young people?
There may be a biological source of prejudice. According to the Genetic Similarity theory of sociobiologist Philippe Rushton this theory is the result of evolution or the “survival of the fittest”. Only wanting their genes to be passed on or have limited resources such as land, water and food. This theory may hold some truth, but biology has not been proven to be a reliable cause of prejudice.
Social norms for different societies do set tolerances for discrimination. Every culture has different ways of existing. Not understanding or being ignorant of the differences does cause prejudice. With the new information age and instant communication, you would think understanding another’s way of life would be easier now and discrimination and intolerance would be a thing of the past.
When a new generation is born, wouldn’t it be nice if as a society the clean slate would be brought up to see another’s differences and embrace them instead of hate or be fearful? Over History this has shown to be an impossible task.
Pink Brain Blue Brain
From the beginning of our lives our culture teaches us what it means to be a male or a female. From the color of our clothing to the toys we are to play with growing up. Boys are naturally supposed to play with toy trucks and girls are expected to play with dolls. Baby girls color is pink and a baby boys color is blue. Before we are even old enough to understand we’re sent these messages at a very young age. Gender is one of the most important aspects of identity that people must learn.
Researchers have tried to figure out the biological feature of gender by examining differences in the behaviors of male and female newborns and infants. The researchers argue that boys tend to reach milestones such as smiling, sitting up without supports, crawling, walking earlier than girls, biologically making them out to be more independent and directive, like an adult male, and making girls out to be warmer, nurturing, and interested in having relationships with others. Although, some researchers say that even at such an early age, a big variety of factors other than biology can affect physical development.
Parents are often unaware they are putting their children through the gender-typed expectations because it’s so normal in our society that most people don’t think twice. Researchers found the way parents describe their new born babies to be quite different also. Parents describe their daughters in delicate words such as beautiful or soft and their boys are described in strong words such as handsome.
Researchers have also found differences in the ways parents communicate with their children depending on their gender. Parents are more likely to talk about sadness with their daughters rather than their sons and more likely to talk about anger issues with their sons. Parents also play rougher and more physical play with their sons. Nick names are also quite different between genders. In one study mothers were more likely to verbally teach and direct their sons than their daughters. They were also more likely to use actions verbs, numbers, and explicit language with their sons.
Parents also gender-socialize their children through the material things they provide for them. Clothes, not only let others know the gender, they also send messages of how that child should be treated and direct behavior along traditional gender lines. One recent study found that mothers expect more risky behaviors from their sons so they give them stronger discipline than their daughters.
As a consequence of differential treatment, both boys and girls learn to adopt gender as an organized principle for themselves and the social world they live in. By the age of two or three, most children can answer the question “Are you a boy or girl?” To a young child being a boy or girl means nothing more than having a girl name or a boy name. At this age a child does not have the full understand that gender is a category into which every human can be placed.
The earliest exposure to information about what it means to be a male or female usually comes from parents, siblings, or other close people in a child’s life. These individuals serve as observational models with whom the child can identify and imitate. One of the most important aspects of identity that people must learn is gender.
Identities & Inequalities by David M Newman
By Lawrence Williams
Discrimination has been around for very long time know. It happens all the time and for different reasons; for your personal appearance, religion, and even personal background. Discrimination happens everywhere from the working world to being out and about with family or friends. It’s not right but happens day in and day out.
One of the world’s most respected scientists is embroiled in an extraordinary row after claiming that black people are less intelligent than white people.
James Watson, a Nobel Prize winner for his part in discovering the structure of DNA, has provoked outrage with his comments, made ahead of his arrival in Britain today.
To conclude people shouldn’t get discriminated against. It’s not right and if the shoe was on the other foot they wouldn’t like it I’m sure.
Women’s Struggle for Equal Rights
By: Chris Leth
Like African Americans and other minorities, women had to struggle for equality. When the struggle for equality first began women’s primary goal was to be able to vote. This right was not provided in The Constitution like they had hoped. It also did not deny them the right to vote either. Founders left this decision open for states to decide. The states chose that if you were a adult white mail who owned property you had the right to vote.
The political cause women became active in was the movement to abolish slavery. In 1848 Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady organized the first women’s right convention. There were 300 women who attended. Over the next 12 years groups that supported women’s rights held even conventions. With the outbreak of the Civil War advocates of women’s rights were urged to put their support behind the war efforts.
In 1869 Susan B Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton formed the National Women Suffrage Association. In the 1900’s The Congressional Union rejected the state-by state approach in weather to allow women to vote. In 1920 the Nineteenth Amendment was passed-“ The right f citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridge by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Source: American Government & Politics Today The Essentials
Women shouldn't have rights
by Marco Tamayo
Discrimination against women happens more then we know but the AAUP is finding ways to limit the practicing illegal discrimination, or discrimination on a basis not demonstrably related to the job function involved, including, but not limited to, age, sex, disability, race, religion, national origin, marital status, or sexual orientation.
According to America Association of University Professors:
1. Title IX is good legislation and does not need revision. It is fair, flexible, and has provided opportunity for millions of young women and girls. (For example: Since implementation, women's participation in collegiate athletics has increased 400%—from 32,000 to 163,000. Girls participation in high school athletics has increased 847%—from 294,000 to 2.8 million.) The policies have been in place through Republican and Democratic Administrations, and have been upheld by every one of the eight federal appellate courts that have reviewed them. The proposed changes would seriously weaken Title IX and would reduce the number of athletic opportunities for women and girls.
2. Discrimination against girls and women still exists, and Title IX is still necessary to ensure progress toward equal opportunity. The fact that women and girls have fewer opportunities reflects continuing discrimination, not lack of interest in sport.
3. Enhancing athletic opportunity for young women and girls is of vital importance because of the significant physical, psychological, and sociological benefits those opportunities provide. A number of studies have recognized the role that athletic opportunities for women provide in promoting greater academic success, responsible social behaviors, and increased personal skills. For low-income women, financial support made available through athletic scholarship may mean the difference in being able to attend college at all.
4. Advances for women and girls do not need to result in decreased opportunities for men and boys. While teams have been cut in recent years, overall budgetary priorities and the emphasis given to higher profile sports have been the culprits. The burden of complying with Title IX still comes down to a commitment to equity.
5. Title IX doesn't need to be revised. Educational institutions need to be better educated about the flexible way that Title IX actually works (the three-prong test). Further, schools should be encouraged to rein in athletic costs and agree on reforms that would allow more female and male athletes the chance to participate in sports.
Limiting the practice of illegal discrimination and using these five ways to help limit the situation, developed by the AAUP should change the way colleges and universities have reacted to the discrimination.
by: Justin Harris
There are many so called intersections that have to do with many different things. Wealthy white men are perceptions are one of these intersections that we look at in everyday life. We have different perceptions on the ones that are the most powerful and influential and these are the people that are usually misunderstood the most. Wealthy white men have received usually no academic attention. It is important to understand these men because these are the men that influence our country and national views on other races.
Another intersection we come across is race, gender, and color. There is research that suggest that skin color is more important for African American women rather than men. There have been many different cultural references that have distinguished between men and women. More so that women have been told they are very beautiful for being such dark skinned and a African American man is more likely to be attractive to a more light skinned female. Skin color is not just limited to African Americans but can be related to anyone race.
Intersections can also be related to everyday social encounters. Social encounters can involve personal discrimination and can be disheartening for middle or upper class members. It is known that the poor or the working class men are the ones to be more susceptible to having people be prejudice against them. Both class are incapable of making decisions of law abiding men and criminally involved men so they have to rely on both stereotypes men. It is said that white men are more middle class men and law abiding and trustworthy and where black men are poor, crime prone, and very dangerous men. These are very stereotypical and should be thought over. Any race of man can be dangerous or trustworthy. I feel that it is all of a matter of how a person is raised and if they were taught the difference between right and wrong as they were growing up.
Prejudice and discrimination can said to be a part of the past that differ from skin color, ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexuality but as it become more irrelevant differences are based on eye color or hair color. As we begin to think that it may be apart of the past it really hasn't and still happens in everyday life and will always happen even in days or even years to come. Everyone is prejudice in some sort of way. Even if you believe your not prejudice because your not basing an opinion off or skin color or religion you still are. You can be prejudice over the way someone dresses or who they hang out with. These are not seen as prejudice acts but in reality they are. People always have and more than likely always will be prejudice.
Newman, David M. Identities & Inequalities. New York: McGraw Hill, 2007. Print.
Filling In the Blanks
By Callie Reed
Stereotypes are a generalization about a group of people that can be either negative or positive. Walter Lippman defined a stereotype as an oversimplified picture of the world, one that satisfies our need to see our social environment as a more understandable and manageable place than it really is. Ethnoracial, religious, gender, and sexual stereotypes are the most common of stereotypes. I myself did not think I was one to stereotype the truth is, we all do at one time or another, or daily. I was thinking back to a time when I realized I had been stereotyping. In high school there was this “new girl” who did not say much to me or any of my friends and I always thought she had a snobby look to her. She also had some other qualities that I thought were “weird.” After I came to that conclusion, I did not try to have anything to do with her. After the first year passed her and I got to know one another and turned out we had a lot in common and turned out to be good friends. We both discussed what we thought of each other before we became friends and it turns out she didn’t think much of me either. We were looking at the outside rather than getting to know one another. That’s when I realized how much I actually do it. We stereotype people on the terms of region of the country they come from, whether or not they are wearing the same style of clothing we are, what they drive, and simply how they present themselves to us. We learn stereotypes at young ages, from those who are around us most like family, the media, and our friends. For example, one study of stereotypes explains that Americans are generally considered to be friendly, generous, and tolerant, but also arrogant, impatient, and domineering. Asians, on the other hand, are expected to be shrewd and alert, but reserved. It is quite obvious that not all Americans are that way and some very well may be. According to this study, others commonly perceive them this way.
Stereotyping is very common and a big problem in conflicts. Groups define themselves as who they are and who they are not, and others, the “enemies” are too often viewed in negative ways. This is probably why they are the “enemy” in the first place. Stereotyping can of course be negative but also positive. Generally, stereotyping is negative, they aren’t always necessarily negative. Some generalizations are necessary in order to interact well. We must have some idea of what people are likely to be like and which behaviors are acceptable and what behaviors are not. They allow us to put people in a category, according to the group they belong to, and make judgments on how they will behave based on that grouping. Stereotypes are only an issue when they are inaccurate.
Our society often subconsciously creates stereotypes, but these stereotypes often lead to unfair discrimination. The stereotype I find most comical in the area I live in, is when college students from other states or countries discriminate on the “hicks” from Kansas. If living in a huge farming community makes a person a hick, then I guess the majority of us around here are considered “hicks.” Although, I don’t blame them for assuming that. We develop stereotypes when we are unable or unwilling to take in all of the information necessary to make fair judgments about people or situations. The best example of what stereotyping is that I found is they call it “filling in the blanks.” True, because when we do stereotype we are assuming and making judgments before even having a clue.
Identities and Inequalities by David M. Newman
By Matt Balogh
In this wiki project I researched the facts that mental health influences a very wide range of outcomes for individuals and communities. These include healthier lifestyles; better physical health; improved recovery from illness; fewer limitations in daily living; higher educational attainment; greater productivity, employment and earnings; better relationships with adults and with children; more social cohesion and engagement and improved quality of life. These outcomes are not just or necessarily a consequence of the absence of mental illness, but are associated with the presence of positive mental health, sometimes referred to as ‘wellbeing’. Improving mental health is a worthwhile goal in itself: most people value a sense of emotional and social wellbeing; in addition, good mental health has many other far reaching benefits.
Mental health is a fundamental element of the resilience, health assets, capabilities and positive adaptation that enable people both to cope with adversity and to reach their full potential and humanity. Mental health is also the key to understanding the impact of inequalities on health and other outcomes. It is abundantly clear that the chronic stress of struggling with material disadvantage is intensified to a very considerable degree by doing so in more unequal societies. An extensive body of research confirms the relationship between inequality and poorer outcomes, a relationship which is evident at every position on the social hierarchy and is not confined to developed nations. The emotional and cognitive effects of high levels of social status differentiation are profound and far reaching: greater inequality heightens status competition and status insecurity across all income groups and among both adults and children. It is the distribution of economic and social resources that explains health and other outcomes in the vast majority of studies. The importance of the social and psychological dimensions of material deprivation is gaining greater recognition in the international literature on poverty and informs current efforts to develop indicators that capture the missing dimensions of poverty.
Inequalities in heath and illness
In society today when you hear mentally retarded there is a connotation that comes with the phrase. In my opinion, that should not change the way you look at a person because they have an illness that they have no control over having. It was not their choice to be born with it so why do people treat them differently?
People with mental health problems suffer discrimination from family, friends and health professionals, according to a report.
The Mental Health Foundation (MHF), which publishes the Pull Yourself Together report on Tuesday, says that action must be taken to tackle the stigma in society surrounding mental illness.
The report, issued to mark Health Action Week, asked people with experience of mental health problems to reveal what kind of discrimination they had suffered or witnessed.
Seventy per cent of those who took part had experienced discrimination in response to their own mental distress, or that of a friend or relative.
And 44% reported discrimination from their GPs - even though they are supposed to be the first point of call for help.
Nearly a fifth of people felt that they could not tell their GPs about their mental health problems.
Some also reported that GPs had attributed physical health problems to symptoms of mental illness.
Many people had received unhelpful or damaging advice from relatives, such as "pull yourself together". Other sufferers said they were thought to be acting, or were considered stupid or unreliable.
Three-quarters of respondents said they would not disclose mental health problems on application forms for jobs for fear of discrimination. More than half would not tell their work colleagues.
Ruth Lesirge, MHF director, said the report highlighted the stigma and discrimination faced by people with mental health problems, and also raised serious questions about the role of the GP.
She said: "It is the doctor who can ensure that you receive appropriate services and treatment. If people are experiencing discrimination or are being told to 'Pull yourself together', then their chances of accessing good support are diminished.
"With one in four of the UK population experiencing mental health problems in any one year, we have to change our attitudes and build on the good services and support that are available."
May 10, 2011
Inequalities in Health and Illness
In America, as we know it, people are discriminated constantly due to certain factors of themselves. You may be out casted because the color of your skin, your gender, your age, and even your religion. Behind closed doors, many people and discriminated due to health problems and illnesses. Being Mentally Retarded closes many doors for those who have this unfortunate illness. People having Autisms, may mean you need to be constantly monitored and/or may never have your own freedom. Let’s stop looking at some of the bigger pictures and focus on the smaller ones. Does having the common cold discriminate you in certain ways? Of course, people not wanting to shake hands and some not even wants to get close to you.
The development of social epidemiology and medical sociology over the last half of the 20th century, in which Leo Reeder played a central role, transformed scientific and popular understanding of the nature and causes of physical health and illness. Viewed in the early 1950s as shaped almost entirely by biological processes and medical care, physical health and illness are now understood to be as much or more a function of social, psychological, and behavioral factors. Utilizing a stress and adaptation conceptual framework, social epidemiology has identified a broad range of psychosocial risk factors for health, most notably: (1) social relationships and support; (2) acute or event-based stress; (3) chronic stress in work and life; and (4) psychological dispositions such as anger/hostility, lack of self-efficacy/control, and negative affect/hopelessness/pessimism, with new risk factors continuing to be identified. However, proliferation of risk factors must be balanced by conceptual integration and causal understanding of the relationships among them, their causes, and consequences. One source of such integration and understanding has been the rediscovery of large and persistent socioeconomic and racial-ethnic disparities in health. Socioeconomic position and race/ethnicity shape individuals' exposure to and experience of virtually all known psychosocial, and well as many environmental and biomedical, risk factors, and these risk factors help to explain the size and persistence of social disparities in health. Improving the socioeconomic position of a broad range of disadvantaged socioeconomic and racial-ethnic strata constitutes a major avenue for reducing exposure to and experience of deleterious risk factors for health, and hence for improving the health of these groups and the overall population. This in turn requires better understanding of the macrosocial forces that influence the socioeconomic position of individuals.
Inequality and Health Care
According to the Washington Post
THE RISE of inequality over the past generation calls for a rethinking of tax and education policies, as earlier editorials in this series have said. But it also calls for reform of the health system. Because of a historical accident — wage controls during World War II drove employers to compensate workers with perks such as medical insurance — the health system is tied to corporations. This exacerbates inequality.
In most countries, rising medical costs are shouldered by taxpayers. Because tax systems are progressive, this means that the extra cost is borne by those who can afford it. But in the United States, where health spending per person has doubled since 1975 (after adjusting for inflation), the non-poor and non-elderly are expected to pay their own way. This is most clearly the case for Americans who lack a company health plan and must pay directly out of pocket. It's increasingly the case for Americans who have corporate coverage that comes with high deductibles and co-payments. But even workers who have generous, all-you-can-eat health plans end up paying indirectly, since their wages are held down to offset the cost of the plans.
The U.S. health system distributes risk as unforgivingly as cost. Because health care comes courtesy of the human-resource policies of big companies, anyone who gets pushed out of a big company may lose coverage. According to Yale's Jacob Hacker, 82 million people, or one in three non-elderly Americans, went without health insurance at some point during the two years beginning in 2003. As more companies drop coverage, the prospect of losing health care will be a growing source of anxiety for all but the most financially secure Americans.
The best-known solution to this problem is the Massachusetts health reform, enacted earlier this year. This approach prevents healthy individuals from dropping out of the insurance pool by mandating that everyone buy coverage; it promotes affordability by subsidizing individuals who are at or below 300 percent of the poverty line; it ensures that coverage is available by allowing people to buy into the plans that are currently offered to Medicaid patients. There are other ways to achieve the same objectives. Rather than mandating individual coverage, taxpayers could cover part of the cost of insuring sick individuals, thereby driving premiums down and enticing healthier people to buy insurance. Rather than allowing individuals to buy into Medicaid, states could invite them to buy into the health plans that are offered to state employees.
This reform would make insurance available for everyone. It should be affordable: The current system, in which 47 million go without insurance, is wasteful as well as shameful because it obstructs the use of cheap preventive medicine and funnels people into expensive emergency rooms.
But promoting universal insurance may be easier than reining in the costs that cause the middle-class pay squeeze. The challenge is to graft cost-cutting reforms onto the public-private jumble that is the U.S. system.
Sociology of Discrimination Wiki-Project #3
By: Blake Steiert
Michael Thompson Colby Community College
For this Wiki article I chose to write about inequalities in healthcare and illnesses. I found an article on the Georgetown.edu website that goes into vigorous detail about the challenges with existing inequalities in the United States today.
“The United States boasts the most expensive medical system in the world, yet consistently ranks behind Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand and the United Kingdom in access to care, equity of care, patient safety and patient outcomes. While the US medical system delivers billions in profits, it delivers little in terms of population health. By the end of 2009, compared with all other nations, the US ranked 50th in life expectancy and 45th in infant mortality. The relatively poor health of Americans is often blamed on a fragmented, for-profit medical system that denies millions of people access to care. The United States is the only industrial nation without a universal public system, and this must change. However, improving the overall health of Americans requires even more fundamental change. Social inequality affects the health of populations more than any other factor – more than diet, smoking, exercise and even more than access to medical care.”
In closing to inequalities in healthcare and illnesses in the United States today and the challenges that face it, it is clear that our government must turn things around when it comes to making healthcare resources more available and attainable. Especially for the common man and less fortunate.
What makes a person poor? What if they don’t have health insurance? Does that make a person poor? Should someone be discriminated against because they do not have health insurance? Generally speaking the government measures wealth based on the poverty level. So, that being said if someone is living above the poverty level they are not poor, correct? According to Mark Perry, a professor of Economics and Finance for the University of Michigan, 4 of 10 uninsured Americans are 18 to 34 and make more than $50,000. Would these individuals be considered poor? How would these individuals be treated if they were diagnosed with cancer, diabetes or had a stroke or heart attack? Would this individual receive the same type of health care as someone with health insurance?
Generally when an individual does not have health insurance they do not receive regular check ups and do not get regular screenings. As a result they do not get a diagnosis for a terminal illness in its early stages when it is best treated. Often time when the symptoms are noticeable and recognizable, treatment options are limited and or sometime even unavailable. As a result, these patients die earlier than patients with health insurance. Patients may seek non-traditional methods or clinical trials as a treatment option. Often times the patients will not even be considered for treatment because they don’t have any money and they do not have insurance.
With the recession and so many people being unemployed families are having to decide which medications to purchase based on the price of the medication, not the need for the medication. This is a decision parents make for their children’s health and the elderly have to make for their own care as well. About ¼ of uninsured American’s have reported they did not get a prescription filled because of the cost associated with it and the inability to pay for the prescription. Shouldn’t everyone be able to get the medication and medical care they need?
The KFF reports nearly half of nonelderly adults who are uninsured have a chronic health condition. This same report says these same adults are reported to be in worse health than those with private insurance. Children who are uninsured and then gain health coverage received more timely diagnoses of illnesses, have fewer hospitalizations and miss fewer days of school than when they did not have health coverage.
The same is true for adults. Adults who were uninsured and then turn 65 and received Medicare benefits saw their doctors for preventive care and their hospital care improves. Why would their hospital care improve? Shouldn’t they receive the same type of care from a hospital whether they have insurance or not?
So many uninsured individuals are faced with two choices when faced with a terminal illness or a severe accident; sink into a hole of debt or face death. Those are two great choices! What would you choose for yourself? What about your spouse or your child? How would you decide? They say you can not put a price on a human life, yet the insurance companies do, and hospitals and the medical community in general know what it is worth. Why are people not all given the right to medical care?
In the article “Health Disparities By Race and Class: Why Both Matter” by Ichiro Kawachi, Norman Daniels, and Dean E. Robinson, they present an interesting argument in regards to both race and class being integral factors when determining the well-being of Americans.
One of the initial points I found extremely interesting is that the United States “is one of the few developed Western nations that does not routinely report health statistics by class.“ However, they go on to detail that the US does gather many forms of data on various health and wellness gaps for such races as White Caucasians and African Americans.
They delve into the history of the debate, and in reading their material, I discovered some very interesting things. I was unaware, for instance, that one of the key scientific debates before slavery was abolished was whether or not it could be scientifically proven that Blacks were physiologically inferior to Whites, and if that were the case, meant to be slaves. They used such rudimental concepts as “supposed racial differences in cranial sizes or oxygen-carrying capacity”, which have since been proven incredibly scientifically inaccurate, but “the tradition of ascribing racial disparities in health to fixed biological traits persists.” They go on to illustrate that with new finds within the Human Genome Project and other studies, these conceptions are cropping back up with various scientific data proving that African Americans are more susceptible to certain diseases than their White counterparts.
A second point they make is how inaccurate it can be for the United States to use race as a proxy for class. They go on to say that this practice comes from two different observations. African Americans have 2.5 times the poverty rate of White Americans, making it seem as if lumping both race and class together seem appropriate, and also, if one were to take into account both race and class as factors in regard to overall health, class would overtake, and in some cases all but eliminate, the racial factor in these studies. The authors go on to indicate why this classification system turns out to be much more inaccurate than some would have you believe. For example, a large majority of Americans living in poverty in the United States (68 percent) are White. They go on to prove, with statistical data, that health-wise, low income Blacks are more related to low income whites when it comes to health similarities, than they would be related to say middle or upper income Black families.
The main point the article tries to make, the point that the previous information leads up to, is that using either race or class exclusively will not give the best gauge of differences in health in our country. They argue that policy needs to be changed to better reflect this sentiment. They believe that to be more accurate, to put it simply, class should be broken down within each race, and information should not be confined to within one single race. For example, you would not only compare the various health statistics of all different social classes within the African American or Caucasian races, but also compare all the various races within each social class. They believe that only by looking at it through more than one lense will America every be able to truly study, understand, and address the various health concerns of every group of people.
Inequalities of Law and Justice
by Drew Posegate
Liberia’s history of governance from 1847 to the fall of the True Whig Party’s oligarchy in 1980, and to the fall of the military dictatorship has been characterized by marginalization and inequality in the distribution of the nation’s wealth. Even after those two periods, the years of crisis also witnessed similar governing arrangements. Indeed, warring factions found eloquent justifications in using the terms ‘marginalization and inequality’ as a means of rallying mass support for their factions. Membership of a warring party became a prerequisite for participating and/or benefitting from the country’s wealth. Ironically, however, only selective members of these factions were able to benefit from the distribution of the state resources, leaving most of the foot soldiers and citizens excluded from the spoils of the crisis.
Under this arrangement, military officers took senior positions in government and civilian employees were given military ranks and uniforms. Leaders from the three frontline advocacy groups against the True Whig Party autocracy – the Progressive Alliance of Liberia, Movement for Justice in Africa, and the Union of Liberian Associations in the Americas – were all incorporated into the military government, thus giving them status in the class of elites.
Reflections on these historical patterns of class and elite constitution in Liberia form the premise of this article: access to political positions has defined the class divide in the country, and has also determined who deserves full justice and who does not. In other words, the dominance of one class (elites) in one sector of Liberia - its politics - empowers that class to spread its influence to other sectors. Consequently, Liberia’s political elites have always formed its economic elite as well. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission, in its final report clearly indicated that the exclusion of the majority of the people from the affairs of the state, and the foundations on which the state was established as a separatist state to ‘civilize, and Christianize’ were part of the causes of the civil war, and have further contributed immensely to poverty in Liberia.
Inequalities in Law and Justice
By: Travis Geile
Discrimination is a broad and ugly thing that takes place everywhere around the world. It can happen in many ways and can be brutal at times. Someone should not be convicted of a crime because of their race, beliefs, sex, or stature as a person. At times I feel like athletes are discriminated against regularly because they are under a microscope and are on such a pedestal. We watch professional athletes on TV and somehow are compared to them. An athlete at a high school or small college is not on the same level as that and should not be even remotely compared because nobody is perfect. This article portrays what I’m trying to say and have been through myself.
UPDATE 3, Friday, April 22, 10:15 a.m.: Pullman prosecutors have dropped all charges against Casto after a judge ruled the evidence in the case inadmissible.
UPDATE 2, Friday, March 25, 9:35 a.m.: The circumstances that led to Casto's arrest have now come to light, thanks to Bud Withers of The Seattle Times. Withers interviewed Chris Tennant, operations commander for the Pullman police. Tennant says that an officer was patrolling off-campus when he noticed a screen missing from Casto's ground-level window. Since there had been a recent spate of robberies in which window screens were removed, the officer went in for a closer look. That's when the cop spied Casto in the bedroom rolling a joint. The officer proceeded to the front door and promptly issued Casto a citation for misdemeanor possession. Casto's attorney says the officer violated his client's right to due process, and asks, "Is that what we should be doing at 1 o'clock in the morning, looking in windows and seeking warrants?"
That version of events was almost identical to rumors that were trickling out of the Pullman campus on Wednesday afternoon, only then the details seemed too absurd to be true. After all, as Casto's attorney asks, is it really worthwhile for cops to go tip-toeing around private residences in the middle of the night, peering in people's windows to see if they're getting high? Is that what "to serve and protect" has come to mean? The other important question here is how will the pot arrests of WSU's three best players affect recruiting in the coming year? It sure seems like a lose-lose for coach Ken Bone. As Withers points out, if the Cougars are trying to woo parents and players with the pitch that they run a disciplined program, three high-profile incidents, to which opposing coaches can point, will contradict that. Meanwhile, players who might otherwise be attracted to a school that turns a blind eye toward pot-smoking are left wondering if they're going to be the next victim of an overzealous police department.
UPDATE 4:12 p.m.: The Spokesman-Review reports that Casto's suspension has been rescinded by WSU athletic director Bill Moos, and the power forward will play tonight against Northwestern in the NIT. Moos explained the decision by saying, "There are unique circumstances involving this matter and I feel the appropriate avenue to take is to allow the legal system to run its course before we consider further action."
The first time, when starting point guard Reggie Moore was busted for misdemeanor pot and paraphernalia possession back in early January, nobody thought much of it. The second time, in early March when the basketball team's star Klay Thompson was pulled over near the school's Greek Row for having a headlight out and was caught with less than two grams of weed, it could be chalked up to bad luck and coincidence. But now there's been a third mid-season arrest for the Cougars, with starting power forward DeAngelo Casto reportedly charged with misdemeanor marijuana possession, and it raises the question: What are the Pullman police smoking?
What brought the Pullman cops to an off-campus apartment so early on a Tuesday morning? Why did they feel the need to enter the residence and root around for a small stash of weed? What kind of small college-town police department arrests the basketball team's three best players mid-season for petty pot possession?
INEQUALITIES IN LAW & JUSTICE
BY: Sadie Jarrett
Criminal law is not the only reflection of the influence of social inequality in the legal system. The laws that have an effect on private and intimate life can have an effect on a romantic relationship. There is no law that states with whom or when we can fall in love. Living in the United States we do not have parents who set up arrange marriages forcing us to try and fall in love with our partner. So, when falling in love you can fall for someone older than you or younger than you. It is all a matter of opinion on who catches your interest. When people fall in love they have the choice of uniting and getting married. Different states have different laws of the legal age you can get married. Then there is the law where you can only be married to one person. Breaking these laws can be very lethal and can affect the rest of your life.
Miscegenation is the sexual contact and marriage between people of the different races. Miscegenation has been feared in the society we live in over the years. There have been laws that have restricted whites from marrying Native Americans or African slaves. This law made it so that if a white woman married a black slave they became a slave themselves. It was said that even if you had one black person in your family tree that you were considered black. These laws were wrong put white men on top.
There are also legal restrictions in many states that a person cannot marry a person of the same sex. There are some states such as California that allow the same sex marriage, but many such as Kansas it is not allowed. It is said that same sex marriages violate the constitutional rights. It is all a matter of a public opinion on beginning to legalize same sex marriage. The military believes in if they don’t know then don’t tell. This is what I believe that everyone should go by and not judge a person’s sexuality.
One other thing that people tend view is a person’s skin color. Skin color is one thing that is looked down upon. Many people believe that a black man is more likely to commit a crime rather than a white man committing a crime; this is known as racial profiling. It is said that in Texas it is twice as likely to search black and Latino vehicles rather than searching a white’s vehicle. Should racial profiling be considered a crime? My personal opinion is that it should be because not all blacks commit crimes and whites are just as likely to commit a crime. Anyone can commit a crime and it should not be based on a person’s skin color on whether or not we think they are going to.
Newman, David M. Identities & Inequalities. New York: McGraw Hill, 2007. Print.
Sociology Races and Discrimination Wiki-Project #1
By: Blake Steiert
Colby Community College Proffessor Michael Thompson
The article that I chose to use for this assignment is about “Inequalities in Law and Justice”. I found a rather older article via-google.com and the article is labled “Marginalization and Inequality in the Justice and Rule of Law systems in Liberia”.
“Liberia’s history of governance from 1847 to the fall of the True Whig Party oligarchy in 1980, and to the fall of the military dictatorship in 1990 has been characterized by marginalization and inequality in the distribution of the nation’s wealth. Under this arrangement, military officers took senior positions in government and civilian employees were given military ranks and uniforms. Judicial and rule of law reforms are addressed in Pillar Four of the PRS: Strengthening Governance and the Rule of Law in which the GOL‘s goal is ‘to work in partnership with all citizens to build and operate effective institutions and systems that will strengthen peace and promote and uphold democratic governance, accountability, and justice for all’ (See Republic of Liberia (2008): Strengthening Governance and the Rule of Law; Poverty Reduction Strategy).”
**Judiciary and Rule of Law Reforms
The Rule of Law is a concept that represents the ideal function of the modern state in addressing the interests of the community and the general population of its territory (See Swiss Agency for Development Corporation: The Rule of Law Concept: Significance in Development Corporation). Basic indicators for a functioning rule of law system include: An adequate functioning judiciary, equality of all citizens in legislations and the application of law; the separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and the judiciary; the respect of human rights (both civil and political rights); the primacy of the constitution; the principle of the legitimacy of the administration; and the human security of every citizen etc.
“The justice system and the Judiciary in Liberia have faced many challenges that can be traced as far back as the founding of the country. The Judiciary has been manipulated by the Executive Branch of Government in many instances, and most of its dispositions in both lower and upper courts have supported and further explained the inequalities in the dispensation of justice in Liberia.”
In conclusion to this in depth and informative story of Liberia, it seems as though the worst is yet to come for their third world country. A country that is completely out of control and bombarded with criminals, drug lords, and lynch mobs. We can all only hope and pray that places of hell on earth like this can only get better…but will they…more than likely not.
Equal Rights for Prison Terms
The feminist movement has brought about many changes for women. We now have the right to vote and are starting to move towards more equal pay and are allowed into some male dominated work places and fields. Women are allowed to be soldiers and serve on the front lines during war. Women are not just seen anymore as housewives, secretaries and nurses. Since the tide is turning in favor of more equality for woman, does it seem fair that women are sentenced lighter than men when doing the same crime? Should equal rights for women only be allowed only when it is for good?
According to the United States Sentencing Commissions records there is a correlation that backs up lighter sentences for woman versus men. They found that woman received prison sentences that average a little over 2 years less than men were given. A 2005 study by David Mustard from the University of Georgia with crimes of similar nature and similarly controlled aspects sentenced in a 3 year window where guidelines were strict, he found that women in average spent 5.51 months less in jail then men. In this case study there was not a huge discrepancy in the sentences. Another study by Justice Quarterly in 1986 showed that for the same felony being male increased the chances of incarceration by 165% as well as being black increased the chance by 19%. The gender of the victim mattered as well. A drunk driver who killed a female victim will receive a 3 year higher sentence than for killing a male.
Although not one reason stood out why the shorter sentences, the facts that women seem to not commit as many crimes as men and are less violent. Also woman are more “motherly” and are the head of families with children and seem more valuable to that family than men.
So does this seem fair? If men and women are entitled to equal rights, shouldn’t equal punishment for equal crimes be the right answer? Equality should benefit all.
In the article “Justice on Trial: Racial Disparities in the American Criminal Justice System”, the author makes a very strong case for what many Americans seem to accept as fact at this point, that there are very vast discrepancies when observing how justice is served to the various racial groups here in America. While the author believes that the United States is in effect working towards complete racial equality in all facets of life, the clear point of this article has a much different tone. The main point the article does it’s best to articulate is as follows, “In one critical arena - criminal justice - racial inequality is growing, not receding.” It goes on to state that “Our criminal laws, while facially neutral, are enforced in a manner that is massively and pervasively biased.”
The article further outlines very specific instances where this bias, as seen today, continues to deprive the various minorities of our country from living with the same comfort in the law as Whites, the racial majority. Statistics show that Blacks and Hispanics are not only much more likely to serve prison time, but currently make up the vast majority of prison populations throughout the country. This high likelyhood of prison time served, as high as 30 percent among black males, the article argues accounts for inequality that goes well beyond the justice system.
These inequalities, some directly associated with an increased likelihood of prison time, include but are far from limited to, employment opportunites, voting rights, and criminal profiling. As most people know, on almost every single application for job employment you fill out, there is a box asking whether or not you are a convicted felon. This article argues that by including that criteria in applications, jobs are more likely to single out minorities who are more likely to have to check said box. Another scary concept, in some states (such as Alabama and Florida) being a convicted felon can result in becoming permanently disenfranchised. That’s correct, if you are convicted of a felony, in some states you are barred from voting in any “free” election for the rest of your life. In the case of African Americans, nearly 1.4 million men have permanently lost the right to vote under these laws.
While criminal profiling is a bit more difficult to prove statistically, when researching various police reports, it’s proven that minorities are much more likely to be stopped and questioned by various law enforcement agencies than their White counterparts. Look no further than the current immigration feud in Arizona. They proposed a law that would make it one hundred percent legal for police to stop and detain people based soley on how they look.
Some might argue, that the very statistics proving an overwhelming majority of incarcerated people being black or Hispanic is proof that it isn’t profiling but simply the result of deductive reasoning. If more of these kinds of people are in prisons, then it would seem more likely that they would be doing something illegal, hence the need to stop and detain more of them than say, Whites. The author of this article argues that such logic is why there is such a vicious circle between minorities and prison terms, and that only when the police begin to treat every person in this country as the same, blank slate, can we start to see an improvement in the justice system as a whole.
Inequalities in Work
By Robert Glover
Personally, I have experienced legal discrimination. As a baseball player for Colby Community College, I have witnessed my teammates and I receiving fines, false accusations, judgment, and legal arrests based on their identities and reputations as baseball players within the community.
I can honestly say that for two years, I have received so many dirty looks, cold remarks, overlooked friendships, and money charges that I didn’t even realize were prejudice in nature. I have seen good young men thrown in jail because of the actions of previous baseball players and the assumptions of law enforcement. These young men have also paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for bail and fees from the community college.
I only hope that based on my own character and interests, people will judge me for who I am and not for what someone else once was in Colby. I am a baseball player, but I am also a curious mind, a piano player, an artist, a son, a brother, an open minded person, a cook, a hippocrate, a grump, a lonely soul, a flawed human: but most of all, I am doing the best I can.
Inequalities in Economics and Work
Women are discriminated in the work place. Especially at Wal-Mart. Look.
When Christine Kwapnoski of Concord, Calif., told her boss at a division of Walmart that she wanted a job promotion, she said, he told her to "blow the cobwebs off your make up" and to "doll up" in order to advance.
Instead, she joined five other female employees and filed a sexual discrimination suit against the company 10 years ago alleging that women had been paid less than men in comparable positions in violation of Title VII, the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination.
As word of the suit spread, dozens and dozens of women joined in and a lower court ruled that the case could go forward on behalf of all current and former female employees since 1998.
Kwapnoski will be at the Supreme Court Tuesday when the justices hear arguments on whether the lower court was correct in allowing the women to band together to file their lawsuit, or whether they must file as individuals.
If the court rules in favor of the women and grants them "class certification," it will most likely become the largest employment class-action suit in history, involving potentially millions of women and billions of dollars.
A decision is likely to come in early summer.
Women are discriminated in the work place. Especially at Wal-Mart.
Inequalities in economics and work
In the work force today it is unfair for teenagers and or people without any job experience. How are you supposed to gain work experience if you can’t get a job because you have no work experience. Older people that make a certain salary are losing their jobs to younger people who will do the same job for less money. So then the old people get screwed because they cannot get hired because they want the same pay they were getting at their old jobs.
Capitalism is hundreds of years old and today dominates nearly every part of the globe. Its champions claim that it is the greatest engine of production growth the world has ever seen. They also argue that it is unique in its ability to raise the standard of living of every person on earth. Because of capitalism, we are all “slouching toward utopia,”—the phrase coined by University of California at Berkeley economist J. Bradford DeLong—slowly but surely heading toward a world in which everyone will have achieved a U.S.-style middle-class life.1
The data on poverty and inequality of income and wealth do not square very well with this image. In the United States, the federal government had defined a “poverty level of income,” one below which families are defined to be poor. It is an income below which families would find it difficult to live without serious problems and which would place them in real danger when faced with any sort of economic crisis, such as a sick child or an injury at work. This official poverty level of income is equal to three times the minimum food budget calculated by the Department of Agriculture, a very modest standard with numerous restrictive and unrealistic assumptions built into it, for example, that poor families will be able to buy food at the lowest unit price and will know how to convert the cheapest food into nutritious meals. In 2002, this was $18,392 for a family of four, or $12.60 per person per day. In 2002, 34.6 million persons lived in poverty, 12.1 percent of the population. The incidence of poverty was 24 percent for blacks and 21.8 percent for Hispanics. In 2001 (I don’t have data for 2002), 35.2 percent of black children under six lived in poverty, as did 29.1 percent of Hispanic children under six. These numbers rise and fall over time and while they have been higher in the recent past, they are still remarkably high when we consider the enormous productive capacity of the U.S. economy and the more than 200 years in which this capacity has steadily risen. And if we used a more realistic definition of poverty—such as one-half the median income, a poverty definition typically used to compare the rich capitalist economies—the incidence of poverty would increase dramatically to 17 percent (in 1997), or more than 45 million persons.2
May 10, 2011
Inequalities in Economics and Work
Economy and Jobs now days are hard to come by, especially the good ones. Jobs that pay the bills and have good benefits. Salaries that can support a family and the cost of living. One thing I hate to say is, men receive better jobs, better salaries, and better benefits. Women constantly get lower paying jobs and sometimes aren’t hired due to their gender. Women also receive lower pay for the same jobs as men. For example, women and men both work in the field of psychology. Both have the same education and degree. The women have one more client then the man, which generally means that she should automatically be getting paid more. But in our messed up economy the male receives more than the female, because he is a male. Not fair at all. Women are just as equal as men.
The United States is facing economic disaster on a scale few nations have ever experienced. Most people are unaware of the easily observable signs of this emerging crisis. While we persist in our superpower mentality, we have quietly become a second-class country in many respects.
We no longer produce what we need to sustain ourselves, we import much more than we export, and we are selling off our assets and taking on massive debts to sustain a standard of living we can no longer afford. Not only was this not the way we became a superpower but it is a sure way to lose this status.
Foreign countries are using the funds earned through our trade deficits to buy many of our strategic companies. Over the past 10 years, foreign interests have purchased an unprecedented $8 Trillion worth of U.S. assets.
The game plan of our international competitors is to render us completely dependent on foreign production, innovation and financing. In losing domestic self-sufficiency, national security and leverage - our foreign affairs will suffer greatly.
We are failing even to acknowledge predatory foreign trade practices undermining U.S. industry. Instead we encourage U.S. manufacturers to design, engineer, and produce in third world markets like Mexico and China.
Sociology of Discrimination
Inequalities in the Economy and Work
Inequalities play a big role in today’s economy and business world. Whether it’s directly in the office or seen throughout the nation, inequalities are found all over. A main problem is the taxation inequality. The more fortunate receive money on their tax breaks, while the less fortunate have to pay most of their money to taxes. It relates strongly to the phrase, “The rich get richer and the poor get poorer”. Economic inequality comprises all disparities in the distribution of economic assets and income. The term typically refers to inequality among individuals and groups within a society, but can also refer to inequality among countries. Wikipedia states that, “The main instrument which diminishes economic inequality, progressive taxation, has been demonstrated to be effective in international comparisons of income compression and wealth distribution. It is a contested issue whether economic inequality is a positive or negative phenomenon. A book published in 2009 has shown that negative social phenomena such as shorter life expectancy, higher disease rates, homicide, infant mortality, obesity, teenage pregnancies, emotional depression and prison population correlate with higher socioeconomic inequality. However, much controversy surrounds its findings.”
The issue of economic inequality is related to the ideas of equity: equality of outcome and equality of opportunity. Economic inequality has existed in a wide range of societies and historical periods; its nature, cause and importance are open to broad debate. A country's economic structure or system, ongoing or past wars, and differences in individuals' abilities to create wealth are all involved in the creation of economic inequality.
Poverty and Inequality in the Global Economy
According to Monthlyreview.org and Michael D. Yates
Capitalism is hundreds of years old and today dominates nearly every part of the globe. Its champions claim that it is the greatest engine of production growth the world has ever seen. They also argue that it is unique in its ability to raise the standard of living of every person on earth. Because of capitalism, we are all “slouching toward utopia,”—the phrase coined by University of California at Berkeley economist J. Bradford DeLong—slowly but surely heading toward a world in which everyone will have achieved a U.S.-style middle-class life.
The United States is often referred to as a nation dominated by the middle class and one in which it is relatively easy for a poor person to become a person of means. Here, it is said, equality of opportunity rules. It is hard to know what phrases like “middle class” and “equality of opportunity” mean, but it is fair to think that such a society ought not to be one in which there is widespread poverty and ought to be one in which people do indeed have a great deal of economic mobility.
The data on poverty and inequality of income and wealth do not square very well with this image. In the United States, the federal government had defined a “poverty level of income,” one below which families are defined to be poor. It is an income below which families would find it difficult to live without serious problems and which would place them in real danger when faced with any sort of economic crisis, such as a sick child or an injury at work. This official poverty level of income is equal to three times the minimum food budget calculated by the Department of Agriculture, a very modest standard with numerous restrictive and unrealistic assumptions built into it. What are the chances that this extensive poverty could be eliminated? Not very high, given that this poverty coincides with large and growing inequality of both income and wealth, inequalities ingrained in the laws of motion of capitalism.
In the United States in 2000, income inequality was greater than at any time since the 1920s, with the richest 5 percent of all households receiving six times more income than the poorest 20 percent of households, up from about four times in 1970. A study by economist Paul Krugman (who has been skillfully assailing the Bush administration in his New York Times column) estimated that perhaps as much as 70 percent of all of the income growth in the United States during the 1980s went to the richest 1 percent of all families. With respect to wealth, in the United States in 1995, the richest 1 percent of all households owned 42.2 percent of all stocks, 55.7 percent of all bonds, 44.2 percent of all trusts, 71.4 percent of all noncorporate businesses, and 36.9 percent of all nonhome real estate. As with income inequality, this inequality has been increasing, at least for the past 20 years.
Two women walk into an all you can eat buffet. One woman is a size 6 and really cute. The other woman is just a cute, but a size 20. Both women eat 3 plates of food, the same amount on each. Everyone in the restaurant looks at the thin woman and thinks how good she looks and what a high metabolism she has. When looking at the heavy woman what do you think everyone thinks? They are all thinking why can’t she stop eating? Does she not realize what she is doing to herself?
Often times people are judged by their appearance not actually who they are. Let’s imagine these same two women apply for the same job. They have the same level of education and similar backgrounds. On paper the both seem equally qualified. The company they are applying with is very progressive and hold a phone interview with each of them. They both interview really well and are both called in for a second interview held face to face.
They are both asked the same questions and based on their answers they are still equally qualified, yet the position is offered to the thin woman, because she is thinner. The thought process behind their decision is others will be drawn to the thinner woman because of her appearance. How is this fair to the larger woman? Employers often times will use store image, insurance costs and future health conditions and physical limitations are reasons not to hire obese people. (Hohonu)
Even children see obesity as a negative trait. Children as young as 6 describe silhouettes of the obese as “lazy”, “dirty”, “stupid”, “ugly”, and “lies”. Adults are not any better, obese children are described as the least likable. (Hohonu) We can all remember the obese child as school. During a dodge ball game the child is generally hit most often and pretty quickly. The same child is generally chosen last when teams are picked at recess or even as a partner for a project in the classroom. This child may be just as bright as any other student in the class, yet they are always chosen last.
Recently brought into the spot light is the discrimination occurring to obese airline passengers. Americans are continually to get larger, yet airline seats have not, they are still 17 inches wide. If a passenger cannot fit in one seat they are asked to buy two tickets if they cannot move to a seat that is next to an empty seat. If a flight is full they do not have to pay for a second ticket. Why would anyone want to buy two tickets for one person to fly? Why should someone be asked to move to accommodate someone who cannot fit into his or her seat? (Livestrong) Unfortunately there are not laws or rules to regulate the size of a seat. The weight of a person is not a protected characteristic and air crews are given a large amount of leeway to say what is and isn’t a safety risk. (Livestrong)