And the end of this class. Well, time has certainly flown. Possibly away with my sanity, but that is fine. Or due to other things.
Anyway, on to the assignment.
One of the things that jumped in my face while doing readings and thinking about these issues is that they are rather impossible to seperate out from each other completely. If you are going to look at things in a cause and effect manner. Or like everything is a spiderweb, it is all conected.
Deviance is one of the things that was intesting to read about. That deviance was in the eye of the beholder, rather than in the laws that regulate such things was very interesting. That right and wrong are created by the society that we live in, and that those rules are subject to change. Then of course there needs to be a norm, which is then broken, and then someone must react to the norm being broken.
When I first learned about the American Revolution, two things that came out of it stood out, freedom of religion, and the idea that people were innocent until proven guilty. But evidently people are rather willing to jump to conclusions about people, before they have had a trial. And that can make finding an imartial jury to be rather hard. Especially if it is a well publized case. People seem to want to be able to put a label on anything, as soon as they find it, and then not change their opinion, or the label that they have placed on someone else, no matter what happens after that.
Now even definitions of words change. And first impressions are normally not the best impressions people are going to get. So the idea that judgements get made that quickly, is interesting. I think that I did know that, but it was not a very consious thing. Now it is something that I think about quite a bit more. Along with what people consider to be deviant behavior, and why it is considered to be deviant. I have heard that drugs are bad frequently, and that alcohol and tabacco are not good either, especially for people who are under the age limit for those things. But there are still people who do those things. It brings up the question of, are the rules and norms making it so that people want to break them, instead of following them? And why do people make those deviances into laws?
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Chapter 13
One of the things that people are interested is where people are from, and how they got here. Admittedly some of those people just want to kick other people out of the country. When this country itself was created by immigrants, or descendants of immigrants. But then, even before the United States of America was a country, there were people that did not want anymore immigrants coming over.
In the United States there seems to be a feeling that what we already have, is all that we are going to need, and that whoever is trying to come now, is not going to help the United States become a better country, economic power, ect. There also seems to be the stereotype of the immigrant that is lazy and using the government for their own gains, instead of being hard workers.
But there are different immigrant groups that people seem to prefer. In the 19th century, German born were preferred over Irish born. Presently the main concern for anti immigration seems to be people from Mexico.
Now immigrants do some of the jobs that most people would not consider doing, no matter what they got paid for it. Yet people seem to think that immigrants are stealing jobs from people. Except that those are the jobs that people do not want.
My family, as far as I know, the majority came over in the late 19th century, but a few came some time before that. Most of them became farmers. Although I am not sure how much of that history has been cleaned up and made presentable by different family members. There is a story about how some of my family members changed their name on the ship over here, from Cromwell to Crowell, because at the time Cromwell was rather unpopular. Some of the others came over because their farm got burned down by their neighbors, because their neighbors did not agree with their politics.
In the United States there seems to be a feeling that what we already have, is all that we are going to need, and that whoever is trying to come now, is not going to help the United States become a better country, economic power, ect. There also seems to be the stereotype of the immigrant that is lazy and using the government for their own gains, instead of being hard workers.
But there are different immigrant groups that people seem to prefer. In the 19th century, German born were preferred over Irish born. Presently the main concern for anti immigration seems to be people from Mexico.
Now immigrants do some of the jobs that most people would not consider doing, no matter what they got paid for it. Yet people seem to think that immigrants are stealing jobs from people. Except that those are the jobs that people do not want.
My family, as far as I know, the majority came over in the late 19th century, but a few came some time before that. Most of them became farmers. Although I am not sure how much of that history has been cleaned up and made presentable by different family members. There is a story about how some of my family members changed their name on the ship over here, from Cromwell to Crowell, because at the time Cromwell was rather unpopular. Some of the others came over because their farm got burned down by their neighbors, because their neighbors did not agree with their politics.
Monday, June 25, 2012
Chapter Twelve
One thing that I have noticed more clearly in this class, is that there are persistent inequalities, that are being worked on, but there are still plenty of people that are not that interested in looking at an issue from someone else's point of view. One of those things is about objectification, and how some men do not see women as humans, but as objects. This of course is not necessarily only done by men on women.
Sexual harassment is sometimes the objectification of women. And it is not a small problem. If 83% of girls from kindergarten to 12th grade have experienced sexual harassment, there is a problem, likely with the perception of women and girls in our culture. Part of that might be to blame of the media, and other entertainment, that seems to think that women have to be perfect at everything that they attempt to do. And if they are not successful at those things, they are a sexual object. Especially if you look at ads. Now one of the problems with looking at sexual harassment and violence, a lot of people seem to want to blame the victim. They dressed inappropriately, they drank to much, they went somewhere that they should not have. Why say that? They were not asking to get assaulted, someone else decided that they thought they could get away with it. And there is a lack of reporting those incidents, because no one wants to have other people blame them, for something like that.
To go along with the idea that people need to dress a certain way, if you listen to the news, people, but women especially, need to look flattering, and pleasant. Not tough, or willing to fight back if you piss them off, that is how men are supposed to look, according to some people. That is not just part of how people dress, but also how they act; tough, submissive, ect.
Let us take a look at politics now. There are a bunch of old white guys, who are also wealthy, who are wanting to make rules that regulate women's health and lives, based on those men's ideas of how the world should work.
So they want to focus on something that people would generally consider to be between a person and their doctor. Alright, evidently they do not feel like working on issues like the pay gap, poverty, inequalities due to race or class, unequal access and costs of health care, or other such issues. Or keeping our government running.
It might also be noted that the Catholic church seems to be having some similar issues right now, as they are trying to convince, or investigate, nun's work. Now the nuns are working with the poor and the people that need help, while the male controlled bureaucracy is more interested in whether gay marriage should be allowed, than people who are suffering from poor pay.
I read something awhile ago, that said that feminism could not just deal with women's issues, but all social issues, because each issue can not be looked at just by itself, but also along with the other factors that contribute to it as well. That seems to be true, as I keep trying to go off on tangents.
articles you might want to look at-
feminism
-http://www.salon.com/2012/06/21/can_modern_women_have_it_all/singleton/
Schrodinger's Rapist
-http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-schrodinger%E2%80%99s-rapist-or-a-guy%E2%80%99s-guide-to-approaching-strange-women-without-being-maced/
abortions and contraception
-http://www.alternet.org/visions/155960/abortions_have_made_life_better_for_millions_of_men%3A_it%27s_about_time_to_speak_up_in_support_/
-http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/06/20/502947/abortion-rate-drops/?mobile=nc
Sexual harassment is sometimes the objectification of women. And it is not a small problem. If 83% of girls from kindergarten to 12th grade have experienced sexual harassment, there is a problem, likely with the perception of women and girls in our culture. Part of that might be to blame of the media, and other entertainment, that seems to think that women have to be perfect at everything that they attempt to do. And if they are not successful at those things, they are a sexual object. Especially if you look at ads. Now one of the problems with looking at sexual harassment and violence, a lot of people seem to want to blame the victim. They dressed inappropriately, they drank to much, they went somewhere that they should not have. Why say that? They were not asking to get assaulted, someone else decided that they thought they could get away with it. And there is a lack of reporting those incidents, because no one wants to have other people blame them, for something like that.
To go along with the idea that people need to dress a certain way, if you listen to the news, people, but women especially, need to look flattering, and pleasant. Not tough, or willing to fight back if you piss them off, that is how men are supposed to look, according to some people. That is not just part of how people dress, but also how they act; tough, submissive, ect.
Let us take a look at politics now. There are a bunch of old white guys, who are also wealthy, who are wanting to make rules that regulate women's health and lives, based on those men's ideas of how the world should work.
So they want to focus on something that people would generally consider to be between a person and their doctor. Alright, evidently they do not feel like working on issues like the pay gap, poverty, inequalities due to race or class, unequal access and costs of health care, or other such issues. Or keeping our government running.
It might also be noted that the Catholic church seems to be having some similar issues right now, as they are trying to convince, or investigate, nun's work. Now the nuns are working with the poor and the people that need help, while the male controlled bureaucracy is more interested in whether gay marriage should be allowed, than people who are suffering from poor pay.
I read something awhile ago, that said that feminism could not just deal with women's issues, but all social issues, because each issue can not be looked at just by itself, but also along with the other factors that contribute to it as well. That seems to be true, as I keep trying to go off on tangents.
articles you might want to look at-
feminism
-http://www.salon.com/2012/06/21/can_modern_women_have_it_all/singleton/
Schrodinger's Rapist
-http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger-starling-schrodinger%E2%80%99s-rapist-or-a-guy%E2%80%99s-guide-to-approaching-strange-women-without-being-maced/
abortions and contraception
-http://www.alternet.org/visions/155960/abortions_have_made_life_better_for_millions_of_men%3A_it%27s_about_time_to_speak_up_in_support_/
-http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/06/20/502947/abortion-rate-drops/?mobile=nc
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Affirmative Action
Affirmative action, programs that are meant to help minorities get what they have been excluded from before, in education and employment mainly. Also is often used to try and work on the institutionalized racism or sexism that is in society.
This is not one of the things that many people can agree on whether this is a good thing or not. One of the concerns is that affirmative action does not help the very poor, and that the help that they receive, mainly in education, is not enough, or is not continued enough to be helpful. Those criticisms are from more liberal minded people. Conservative minded people are concerned with the idea that people get different treatment, even if there has been a history of discrimination against that particular group. They also are the ones who are worried about reverse racism.
A problem with the conservative criticisms is that just because discrimination is now considered to be a bad thing, that does not mean that it has disappeared all together, and become a mythical creature. There is still quiet racism, along with prejudice and stereotypes, which do not help with anything, and are harder to unseat than rules that people have found to be unfair. Stereotypes can create prejudice, and prejudice can create discrimination, it just might be easier to ignore that, rather than the blatant acts of discrimination.
It is slightly hard to separate out the problems of race inequalities, with the problems of class inequalities, as some of the issues are all tangled together into a knot, and working on one issue, will end up linking with other issues as well. Questions about affirmative action lead to questions about jobs, which lead to questions about who has access to health care and to good schools for their kids, which comes back to affirmative action for school.
This is not one of the things that many people can agree on whether this is a good thing or not. One of the concerns is that affirmative action does not help the very poor, and that the help that they receive, mainly in education, is not enough, or is not continued enough to be helpful. Those criticisms are from more liberal minded people. Conservative minded people are concerned with the idea that people get different treatment, even if there has been a history of discrimination against that particular group. They also are the ones who are worried about reverse racism.
A problem with the conservative criticisms is that just because discrimination is now considered to be a bad thing, that does not mean that it has disappeared all together, and become a mythical creature. There is still quiet racism, along with prejudice and stereotypes, which do not help with anything, and are harder to unseat than rules that people have found to be unfair. Stereotypes can create prejudice, and prejudice can create discrimination, it just might be easier to ignore that, rather than the blatant acts of discrimination.
It is slightly hard to separate out the problems of race inequalities, with the problems of class inequalities, as some of the issues are all tangled together into a knot, and working on one issue, will end up linking with other issues as well. Questions about affirmative action lead to questions about jobs, which lead to questions about who has access to health care and to good schools for their kids, which comes back to affirmative action for school.
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Chapter Ten
So today we are supposed to figure out, roughly, the minimum amount that a family of four would spend on things to meet basic living requirements. This family has two parents, a seven year old in school, and a three year old that needs someone to be around all the time.
Basics would be food, housing, transportation, childcare, laundry, clothing, medical care, entertainment and school supplies. Assuming that the seven year old does not go to a paid child care place after school, only one of the children needs to have child care.
The total that I came up with was $25,985, which is higher than the $22,113 that is the poverty line. That total is not including health insurance, or health care, because a quick query found that health insurance can be around three fourths of the poverty line. Included was food, if they cooked themselves, clothing, housing as a two bedroom apartment in the Twin Cities. Transportation, if they had on average two trips per day per adult on the public transit. Child care for the three year old, which came to about eight thousand dollars a year by itself, laundry, entertainment and school supplies. And a cell phone plan is also included in that cost.
Now one of the parents could stay home and take care of the three year old, cutting the cost of child care, but then that parent would also not be working and bringing income into the household, which could be problem, depending on how much that parent is making.
This family is not considered completely poor, but they do not have much money to save up, and emergencies, medical, family, natural or other people's bad actions would make the family's life quite a bit harder. Not having access to medical care will likely cause health problems down the road. Also, not having much money will cause a few other problems in regards to education, and getting anything higher than a high school diploma. As a family they will not be able to take vacations, as the parents likely do not have vacation time, and they have no car either.
Basics would be food, housing, transportation, childcare, laundry, clothing, medical care, entertainment and school supplies. Assuming that the seven year old does not go to a paid child care place after school, only one of the children needs to have child care.
The total that I came up with was $25,985, which is higher than the $22,113 that is the poverty line. That total is not including health insurance, or health care, because a quick query found that health insurance can be around three fourths of the poverty line. Included was food, if they cooked themselves, clothing, housing as a two bedroom apartment in the Twin Cities. Transportation, if they had on average two trips per day per adult on the public transit. Child care for the three year old, which came to about eight thousand dollars a year by itself, laundry, entertainment and school supplies. And a cell phone plan is also included in that cost.
Now one of the parents could stay home and take care of the three year old, cutting the cost of child care, but then that parent would also not be working and bringing income into the household, which could be problem, depending on how much that parent is making.
This family is not considered completely poor, but they do not have much money to save up, and emergencies, medical, family, natural or other people's bad actions would make the family's life quite a bit harder. Not having access to medical care will likely cause health problems down the road. Also, not having much money will cause a few other problems in regards to education, and getting anything higher than a high school diploma. As a family they will not be able to take vacations, as the parents likely do not have vacation time, and they have no car either.
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
System of Education
Chapter 9
As a college student, there is a system that must be followed, for registering for classes, declaring a major, graduating and basically everything else. In some ways the system of education in college is looser than it was in high school, middle school or elementary school. Then classes were all required, and there were few if any choices in what classes you were able to take. In college at least there are classes that you can take, and the order you take classes in is not a regimented.
It is strange to hear all of the complaints about public schools currently, because they might not be wonderful, but why should they be destroyed instead of rebuilt? One of the things that I would like to do is be a high school history teacher, and it is very discouraging to hear that.
The way that education is currently, the expectation is that everyone will go to college. The idea that goes along with that, is that the people who do not go to college are not as smart. Which is a problem, considering how expensive college is, and how many people are going to end up with a lot of dept for their trouble.
One of the most prevalent ideas about education is that going to school will help you to become a well balanced and well rounded person, who has a basic understanding of many different things. Which means that even in college we need to take classes that we might not be the most interested in, but will help us to become more well rounded, or for the more cynical person, it will be one step closer to getting the diploma. As students, we are required to take those classes, and there is no way to get out of those requirements, even if they are our worst subjects.
So as students we get to take classes, take the tests(thankfully the tests in college are not the statewide standardized tests) and try to graduate on time as expected so we can be functional members of society. And get a job.
As a college student, there is a system that must be followed, for registering for classes, declaring a major, graduating and basically everything else. In some ways the system of education in college is looser than it was in high school, middle school or elementary school. Then classes were all required, and there were few if any choices in what classes you were able to take. In college at least there are classes that you can take, and the order you take classes in is not a regimented.
(Some books from the turn of the last century.)
For thirteen years I was in the public school system, and one of the things that we heard about frequently as we got older was the increasing amounts of tests that we were going to have to take, and how teachers were feeling like they had to teach to the test. Those were the standardized tests that we had to take, and no one liked them. We were told about how important to our future they were, and how it was very important that we do well on them, but we really did not care, and actually sort of hated them. Test days were days when nothing got done, and we rarely heard how we did on those tests afterwards. It is strange to hear all of the complaints about public schools currently, because they might not be wonderful, but why should they be destroyed instead of rebuilt? One of the things that I would like to do is be a high school history teacher, and it is very discouraging to hear that.
The way that education is currently, the expectation is that everyone will go to college. The idea that goes along with that, is that the people who do not go to college are not as smart. Which is a problem, considering how expensive college is, and how many people are going to end up with a lot of dept for their trouble.
One of the most prevalent ideas about education is that going to school will help you to become a well balanced and well rounded person, who has a basic understanding of many different things. Which means that even in college we need to take classes that we might not be the most interested in, but will help us to become more well rounded, or for the more cynical person, it will be one step closer to getting the diploma. As students, we are required to take those classes, and there is no way to get out of those requirements, even if they are our worst subjects.
So as students we get to take classes, take the tests(thankfully the tests in college are not the statewide standardized tests) and try to graduate on time as expected so we can be functional members of society. And get a job.
Deterrence
Deterrence Theory, the idea that is the costs of a particular action are high enough, then people will not engage in the stated behavior. Or the costs are larger than the benefits would be.
With Sociology we talk about how norms and mores can shape how people expect certain behaviors. These behaviors are not just for individuals and communities, but countries also work with deterrence, to try and keep other countries from doing things that they disapprove of. In the past there was the build up of military might to keep countries from picking a fight with them. Even today countries try to keep from getting attacked, because that is not in their best interest. Currently the United States is trying to deter other countries from launching a nuclear attack against the United States, mainly by showing that the United States also has the capabilities to launch a nuclear attack as well.
Back to the idea of deterrence theory, it assumes that people are acting rationally, and are thinking about the potential consequences of what they are about to do, instead of just looking at the people who do violate certain norms and mores. There are also concerns, or theories that consider the idea of deviance(socially disapproved of behavior) to be a construct, and then the deterrence is also a way of controlling people better, by using the standards of society.
So society can influence a lot of things about the way that people live their lives. There is a lot more pressure against 'smaller' crime, such as drugs, while there is less stigma attached to people who steal money from other people for a living. When the second group is doing more damage to the rest of the country than the first group is. So how did the United States get there? Is it about racial issues, or is it about money, and the power that having money has? Is there something else as well? It seems that there are many different reasons behind the ideas of deterrence, and that they all have to be discussed, because they are all intertwined. Deterrence is also one of those things that can be used to prevent harmful things, but it can also be used to try and create a sense of normal as acceptable, and what is not normal is not acceptable.
article about U.S. defense/deterrence-
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=116551
With Sociology we talk about how norms and mores can shape how people expect certain behaviors. These behaviors are not just for individuals and communities, but countries also work with deterrence, to try and keep other countries from doing things that they disapprove of. In the past there was the build up of military might to keep countries from picking a fight with them. Even today countries try to keep from getting attacked, because that is not in their best interest. Currently the United States is trying to deter other countries from launching a nuclear attack against the United States, mainly by showing that the United States also has the capabilities to launch a nuclear attack as well.
Back to the idea of deterrence theory, it assumes that people are acting rationally, and are thinking about the potential consequences of what they are about to do, instead of just looking at the people who do violate certain norms and mores. There are also concerns, or theories that consider the idea of deviance(socially disapproved of behavior) to be a construct, and then the deterrence is also a way of controlling people better, by using the standards of society.
So society can influence a lot of things about the way that people live their lives. There is a lot more pressure against 'smaller' crime, such as drugs, while there is less stigma attached to people who steal money from other people for a living. When the second group is doing more damage to the rest of the country than the first group is. So how did the United States get there? Is it about racial issues, or is it about money, and the power that having money has? Is there something else as well? It seems that there are many different reasons behind the ideas of deterrence, and that they all have to be discussed, because they are all intertwined. Deterrence is also one of those things that can be used to prevent harmful things, but it can also be used to try and create a sense of normal as acceptable, and what is not normal is not acceptable.
article about U.S. defense/deterrence-
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=116551
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Family
A particular image normally comes to mind whenever people mention family. That image normally is a mom, a dad, some kids and a dog. But at the same time, most families are not as picture perfect, there are missing parents, divided parents, no kids, and/or other combinations.
Currently the United States has been focusing a lot of its political attention on social issues, one of them being marriage rights. And there has been a focus of attention on the idea that families need to have two parents, at least in regards to getting families out of poverty, and that having a so called "stable" family is going to create more well adjusted children. So a main question of what a family is, might not be who we consider our family to be, but who the government will allow us to say are our family. Because the government does have some rights to deny some people the right to marry another person.
In some ways we create our family. We choose who we would like to live with. In others we just have to deal with the hand that we were dealt.
There are some people who say that the attempts to legalize gay marriage are not worth it, because marriage as it is recognized at the moment is not something to be trying to achieve, and that it is instead rather elitist, by making things harder for those people who are not married. During the Bush administration, they promoted a two parent home as the basis for economic security. There have been pushes to have marriage mean a lasting relationship, but given the current(and historical) trends in divorce and single parenting, it would seem like the definition of a family should be changing to fit in with the current realities about families, instead of trying to fit everyone into a cookie cutter mold of what a family should be like. It should also be noted that race and gender play a part in how families are viewed, and how they are treated.
So a question, is marriage a privileged institution, and how can our image of family be changed to fit with current reality's about families?
Articles you might find interesting-
Punks, Bulldaggers and Welfare Queens- The Radical Potential of Queer Politics? by Cathy J. Cohen
Currently the United States has been focusing a lot of its political attention on social issues, one of them being marriage rights. And there has been a focus of attention on the idea that families need to have two parents, at least in regards to getting families out of poverty, and that having a so called "stable" family is going to create more well adjusted children. So a main question of what a family is, might not be who we consider our family to be, but who the government will allow us to say are our family. Because the government does have some rights to deny some people the right to marry another person.
In some ways we create our family. We choose who we would like to live with. In others we just have to deal with the hand that we were dealt.
There are some people who say that the attempts to legalize gay marriage are not worth it, because marriage as it is recognized at the moment is not something to be trying to achieve, and that it is instead rather elitist, by making things harder for those people who are not married. During the Bush administration, they promoted a two parent home as the basis for economic security. There have been pushes to have marriage mean a lasting relationship, but given the current(and historical) trends in divorce and single parenting, it would seem like the definition of a family should be changing to fit in with the current realities about families, instead of trying to fit everyone into a cookie cutter mold of what a family should be like. It should also be noted that race and gender play a part in how families are viewed, and how they are treated.
So a question, is marriage a privileged institution, and how can our image of family be changed to fit with current reality's about families?
Articles you might find interesting-
Punks, Bulldaggers and Welfare Queens- The Radical Potential of Queer Politics? by Cathy J. Cohen
State Austerity and the Racial Politics of Same-Sex Marriage in the US by Priya Kandaswamy
(These articles are sort of academic. Alright, rather academic.)
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Impressions and Interactions
When thinking about how I act around different people, I realize that about half the time it is an act, mainly to make it seem like I am more talkative and extroverted than I really am. So it must be said that I do often engage in impression management.
This is mainly something that happens at work, because I am working with the public, and acting pleasant and informative is a good thing. Having a smile when people come in, and being cheerful and interacting with them gets them more interested, and willing to talk about history. Also when dealing with school groups learning to have your voice carry over other people talking is important. That helps make you appear to be the person to listen to, and the one with some authority there. But most of the time I am told that I need to speak up, talk louder, and talk more.
Being around people that I do not know well, means that I will be rather reserved, and quiet, until I have gotten to know them and their views on issues, so that we do not end up in an argument that would be pointless, and would just end up irritating a lot of different people. This is something that I work on often around my extended family, which means that a lot them think of me as the quiet shy one. Which I sometimes work to encourage, by sticking my nose in a book and ignoring people.
As one final thing, I try not to get much attention. Sometimes being invisible is more pleasant than talking to other people. It also means that people are much more willing to ignore you.
This is mainly something that happens at work, because I am working with the public, and acting pleasant and informative is a good thing. Having a smile when people come in, and being cheerful and interacting with them gets them more interested, and willing to talk about history. Also when dealing with school groups learning to have your voice carry over other people talking is important. That helps make you appear to be the person to listen to, and the one with some authority there. But most of the time I am told that I need to speak up, talk louder, and talk more.
Being around people that I do not know well, means that I will be rather reserved, and quiet, until I have gotten to know them and their views on issues, so that we do not end up in an argument that would be pointless, and would just end up irritating a lot of different people. This is something that I work on often around my extended family, which means that a lot them think of me as the quiet shy one. Which I sometimes work to encourage, by sticking my nose in a book and ignoring people.
As one final thing, I try not to get much attention. Sometimes being invisible is more pleasant than talking to other people. It also means that people are much more willing to ignore you.
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Agents of Socialization
Agents of socialization refers to groups, individuals, institutions and organizations that can shape people's behaviors, and expectations of life. These people and organizations can be anyone that someone comes into contact with, and might be influenced by.
Especially kids can be influenced by the people who are around them. It has been said that kids learn by watching other kids and adults. This can be seen somewhat in the Bobo Doll Experiment, with the children doing what the adult had done before them.
So as kids grow up, if they do not hear anyone saying that hateful or hurtful talk is wrong, or they hear it frequently from people in their lives, they might consider that to be normal. The schools that kids go to, the teachers, administrators and other students will help to shape how the kid will grow up. There was another point about how people can not separate themselves from their past, because their past was what shaped their lives. And the people who will have a large impact on others will help shape how those people think as/when they grow up.
In psychology there seems to be a lot of debate as to the best way of raising children, but parents seem to be concerned with the influences that their children are exposed to. Based on what they are exposed to, then the concern seems to be what lessons the kids will take away from them.
In my own life I have found that I do not act the same whether I am at work, in class, running errands or talking with my friends. Being at different places normally requires different levels of talking and interacting with other people. So the different places that a person is, a different personality they might be showing to the world.
Especially kids can be influenced by the people who are around them. It has been said that kids learn by watching other kids and adults. This can be seen somewhat in the Bobo Doll Experiment, with the children doing what the adult had done before them.
In psychology there seems to be a lot of debate as to the best way of raising children, but parents seem to be concerned with the influences that their children are exposed to. Based on what they are exposed to, then the concern seems to be what lessons the kids will take away from them.
In my own life I have found that I do not act the same whether I am at work, in class, running errands or talking with my friends. Being at different places normally requires different levels of talking and interacting with other people. So the different places that a person is, a different personality they might be showing to the world.
Monday, June 11, 2012
Cultural Norms
In our textbook we have several challenges in each chapter in regards with the information. One of them in chapter four is to wear something not considered appropriate in one place, that is appropriate elsewhere, and act like it is perfectly appropriate.
So I work at a historic site and have to wear period correct clothing. So if I have to run errands after work, I just go in kit(costume). I realised when I was typing this up that I have no pictures of my in costume, so for now, here are some pictures that are similar, but more fancy than what I wear.
pictures from wiki-commons
In the 1880's those dresses would have been perfectly normal to wear. Now people will give you all sorts of odd looks.
I have done this in both the suburbs and the Twin Cities. In the Twin Cities most people will just glance me twice, and then ignore me. In the suburbs they seem to think that I am either Mennonite, or Amish. There were a few people in the suburbs who asked if I was Amish. I told them that it was my work clothes, and that I was a historical interpreter. Filling up a car with gas was interesting. In other words people seemed to be wondering why I was dressed like I was, but they were to polite, or not nosy enough to ask.
It was not that worrying to go out dressed like that. It was actually rather entertaining, watching people try to figure out what I was doing. We have talked about this at work, and come to the conclusion that it is convenient, and most often entertaining, if you pay attention to other people's reactions.
These sorts of experiments seem like they could cause some problems, due to being fairly random, and the setting in which you go to. Some places would have a much different reaction than others. And you would have to do quite a few to get a good base to make conclusions from.
Culture seems like it changes frequently, but people do not notice the changes, except when they are looking back at them. Culture also seems to be one the driving forces behind people's actions, such as how they want to shape the country, and how they want the country to move forward. Along with their interpretation of what is happening at the moment in the world.
Norms seem to be what people would consider to be average, and what is to be attained in order to be considered normal by the rest of the community.
Friday, June 8, 2012
Personal Billboards
Quite frankly the idea of a personal billboard was an odd idea to begin with. But the idea that bumper stickers and shirts can be billboards makes sense.
One thing that I noticed about personal billboards is that I do not have many. I am not that fond of broadcasting to the world what I like or think. So for me at least, I do not think that personal billboards have much value. On the other hand, they can be very helpful to find other people that share the same interests as you, and to avoid arguing with the people who strongly disagree with you. If a group of people are all wearing similar shirts, then it will be easier to differentiate who is in what group, along with their purpose.
So to clear that up, I personally do not really care for using personal billboards, but they are very useful to get messages across.
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
Events From When I was Twelve
I turned twelve in 2004. Which was an election year. Almost everyone in our school was excited about the ideals of democracy, and the hope that the future would not appear quite as dark as it seemed from what I could pick out from what the adults were saying during the election campaign. Although my memory of that year might be slightly affected by the numerous negative campaign ads that were -and still are- prevalent during election years. That was also the first year I ever payed attention to politics. It did not exactly give a good impression of the state of politics in the United States.
With all of the election coverage, there was quite a bit of concern about what was happening in the Middle East, with pictures of the prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib coming to light, and the New York Times saying that it had failed in the quality of its journalism by not questioning its sources about the Weapons of Mass Destruction that were rumored to have existed. Also related to the potential existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction, the United States lifted sanctions on Libya, which had been in place for 18 years for cooperating. But the Middle East has a long history, which can not be summoned up simply or quickly. And to this day there is still unrest there.
In 2004, the Republic of Ireland was the first country in the world to ban smoking in all work places. That included bars and resturants. That issue came to the United States, and the issue seemed to be about how far the government could try and protect people's health from their own habits. Which seem to be an ongoing debate.
Back to the elections of 2004, Bush was reelected, and eleven states banned gay marriage. And still eight years later, we are still not done with that issue. I think that I was a lot more optimistic when I was twelve about how people would be nicer once they were older. But there was a sense that no matter what, getting out and voting was a very important thing to do, and how it was a person's civic duty to vote once they were able to. The sense that I need to vote has stayed with me, even though now there are plenty of people who are willing to say that voting does not accomplish anything.
With all of the election coverage, there was quite a bit of concern about what was happening in the Middle East, with pictures of the prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib coming to light, and the New York Times saying that it had failed in the quality of its journalism by not questioning its sources about the Weapons of Mass Destruction that were rumored to have existed. Also related to the potential existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction, the United States lifted sanctions on Libya, which had been in place for 18 years for cooperating. But the Middle East has a long history, which can not be summoned up simply or quickly. And to this day there is still unrest there.
In 2004, the Republic of Ireland was the first country in the world to ban smoking in all work places. That included bars and resturants. That issue came to the United States, and the issue seemed to be about how far the government could try and protect people's health from their own habits. Which seem to be an ongoing debate.
Back to the elections of 2004, Bush was reelected, and eleven states banned gay marriage. And still eight years later, we are still not done with that issue. I think that I was a lot more optimistic when I was twelve about how people would be nicer once they were older. But there was a sense that no matter what, getting out and voting was a very important thing to do, and how it was a person's civic duty to vote once they were able to. The sense that I need to vote has stayed with me, even though now there are plenty of people who are willing to say that voting does not accomplish anything.
Monday, June 4, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)