I have to say that I’ve pretty much never thought about any of this. Davis brings up many good points. I feel like our country is so industrialized and developed that we would never have a problem like this. But the more I think about it, people do seem too crowded in their living situations and it’s only going to get worse. Davis makes his point very clear in the first couple paragraphs. He says “For the first time the urban population of the earth will outnumber the rural. Indeed, given the imprecisions of Third World censuses, this epochal transition may already have occurred.” Before reading this article, this honestly meant nothing to me and I didn’t realize how this could possibly affect us in years coming.
Davis makes many good points in his article about our global population. I always knew that the rural areas were less populated but never thought that the cities have absorbed nearly two-thirds of the global population since 1950 and it continues to grow. He talks about the countryside reaching its maximum population and will begin to shrink after 2020. Basically, every one’s going to move into the urban communities or the “slums.” What I found really interesting in this article was the talk about the slums. Davis says, “slums is also unusual in its intellectual honestly. One of the researchers associated…… defining the problem of global slums not as a result of globalization and inequality but rather as a result of “bad governance…… the primary direction of both national and international interventions during the last twenty years has actually increased urban poverty and slums, increased exclusion and inequality, and weakened urban elites in their efforts to use cities as engines of growth.” I find that very interesting considering that these interventions were supposed to help but completely failed.
Davis has really got me thinking about this urban population problem. I think we all need to think about it but when thinking of ideas to stop this problem just seems crazy to me. I don’t think there’s a way to deal with this problem, to be completely honest.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Planet of Slums
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Davis- Planet of Slums
First I would like to say this essay really made some good points and talked about things that I have never thought of or put together. At the start of his essay he makes his point very clear; the world’s population is being forced into smaller and smaller areas to live where the only way of life is to live in a slum in some mega cities. The time is even coming for the small rural towns; soon everything will merge close to one another or at least the mega cities will be where someone is going to have to live to survive. Davis states that “The exact event is unimportant and it will pass entirely unnoticed. Nonetheless it will constitute a watershed in human history. For the first time the urban population of the earth will outnumber the rural. Indeed, given the imprecision’s of Third World censuses, this epochal transition may already have occurred”. Davis puts out a view of the world around us and it does not look so good and he makes it clear that it is only getting worse with time.
He then goes on to explain that there are limits and those limits have been broken for years and are bound to get worse before they get better. He states “In 1950 there were 86 cities in the world with a population over one million; today there are 400, and by 2015, there will be at least 550. Cities, indeed, have absorbed nearly two-thirds of the global population explosion since 1950 and are currently growing by a million babies and migrants each week. The present urban population (3.2 billion) is larger than the total population of the world in 1960” which is crazy to even begin to think about and apply to the world around you. The majority of humanity live in a urban area and because of that places like China, Brazil and India only kind of equal the population of Europe plus North America and they is little room for the people that currently live there (Davis). Small cities and towns now have to deal with converting to the urban feeling of life. The urban are the poorest in the world and in some places of the world those people are living in environments that are unsafe, unsanitary and are breeding grounds for disease and death. In one part of this essay Davis suggest that some of these urban slums are comparable to Victorian London and it is the modern developed world. Davis explains the mass amount of growth in terms that when you think about it you kind of get a feeling that you wish you could have heard these years ago or go back and change history. He makes one see what is going to happen. He references research and science that has been proven to show that the more we grow as a global population the worse for humankind. It is not natural to grow in numbers that we cannot globally sustain.
Davis goes on to say that the urban slums are built upon economic, political and ways of government that seem to keep those in the slums there. They might not be meaning to but with the growth of the population and the way the economy is today the only way a good majority of people can survive is by moving into the slums or the cities, and towns next to the cities. Some are even forced to move to the largest parts of the cities where the feel like they can stay a float in the world around them. Davis gives great examples and one of the ones I think fit well and will bring the point home for the whole essay is when he is states that
“Slums is also unusual in its intellectual honesty. One of the researchers associated with the report told me that ‘the “Washington Consensus” types (World Bank, IMF, etc.) have always insisted on defining the problem of global slums not as a result of globalization and inequality but rather as a result of “bad governance”.’ The new report, however, breaks with traditional UN circumspection and self-censorship to squarely indict neoliberalism, especially the IMF’s structural adjustment programmes.[24] ‘The primary direction of both national and international interventions during the last twenty years has actually increased urban poverty and slums, increased exclusion and inequality, and weakened urban elites in their efforts to use cities as engines of growth”.
He is saying that slums are created and maintained and they are not going any where soon. Countries are struggling to survive but without the slums they would be dying and would be with even less resources, or at least they fear. The point Davis is trying to make is that being aware is a good thing, because of course someone needs to see the problem, but can we fix it? It might just be too late to fix what society has created and we might as well just ride it out, I think that Davis is suggesting the same thing. How would we live without mega cities with million people populations?
Massive Global Income Inequality
Firebaugh starts out by citing classical economists like Thomas Malthus who during the time of the Industrial Revolution thought that humans across the globe would suffer low levels of income and living in the future. To make a point, he goes on to note that the truth is actually quite the opposite. Firebaugh goes on to mention that the world's average income has risen dramatically in the past two centuries, from $651 in 1820 to $5,204 in 1990. This is where I began to question a few things myself. Of course the average income is up, because more money is being made. Capitalism has made making money the top priority in many different ways all over the globe.
The next point that Firebaugh makes addresses that issue. The problem is that the income of the world has risen, along with the disparity between those with that income and those with much less. Western industrialized countries dominate the market in so many ways, and the average income in those areas show it. The areas of the world that control the most valuable resources and the most important markets have a stranglehold on the income of the world, while many other underdeveloped areas (such as Africa and India) are a completely different story with many citizens living in poverty. Firebaugh goes on to state that the global income inequality is not necessarily any worse than it was 40 or 50 years ago, but it is shifting from "inequality across nations to inequality within nations". I see this as meaning that globalization has changed the world income so mnuch that wealth can be found almost anywhere in the world, in any country. The problem is that disparity now exists in those countries instead of just between countries or areas of the the world, further increasing the gap between low-income people and the upper-class elite. With ever-increasing technological advancement, making money has never been easier for those people who hold the means of production. Technology has put efficiency at an all-time high, decreasing manual labor and increasing profit because of it. The problem is that we're seeing this gap continually widen, the gap between those with money/power and those struggling to attain it. The effects of this type of system have put economies, not just in the U.S., but all over the world in question.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Massey: Age of Extremes
Alright, alright. We're talking about poverty again in this writing. Massey brings up some very valid discussion about poverty, how hard it is to define, and briefly where it is located in the United States.
The thing that most gets me is that with all this discussion about poverty and what not, we still have it. I do wonder, often, why people raise so much money to help others in third world countries when the United States is starving in their backyards. I do often wonder recently too, how the President can hold a banquet worth 500,000 dollars on Thanksgiving, and we're still wondering how to help the population overcome the poverty line. I do not get it. I'm going to, as so many times in my writing, stand on this soap box for a second. I do not have a lot of information to back any of the claims I am about to make, so please be gentle if you disagree. I just feel like we are so blinded by our comfort as Americans. To be part of the top 1% in the world, wow, its truly an honor. We have the oportunity to chase dreams and make green, we're the elite. But then we complain, all of the time about the people who are starving in Africa. (I only use Africa because everyone says that phrase.) The point is, here are people starving in Saginaw, my hometown. There are people starving in Lansing, and yes even in Mt. Pleasant. Are we so naive to think that we will change the world when we're not whole? We as the United States of America should band together so that we can change the world here first. I would have been super impressed if the President spent 500,000 dollars on a meal to feed the homeless for one day. That one meal could have lasted them for weeks.
I'm sorry to rant, I just hear so much in the Sociological realm about poverty, and starving people and how there is such a separation between the poor and rich, and I do not see anyone with the most power to change things, doing anything to close that gap. What good is all of the statistics and information that Massey gives us if we aren't doing anything about it. That's it, off the soap box. Again, i'll never understand why I cannot do these things on time.
Global Austerity-Pollin
Pollin discusses the period after World War II and how it became influential in governments policies in promoting economic growth and equality. These policies became more and more interventionist as exemplified in communist countries where the government controlled “virtually all productive assets and economic activity was directed through a government-established comprehensive plan” (pollin 874). These resulted in high employment rates and relative equality in health and educational opportunities.
Similar to that there were import substituting industrialization models where every chance to increase capacity to manufacture goods was taken to strengthen the local market, this kept healthy domestic markets and rose the standard of living in the countries it was present in. While there were many benefits from these forms of socialism pollin argues that it was repressive and forced companies to compete against each other for government favor. Pollin goes on to argue that the transition from big government to the neoliberal governments has increased global inequality in income and standard of living. In examining this he looks at the institution of sweatshops and their affect on the workers and the economy. The workers are effectively enslaved in some sweatshops where the business takes the new workers ID card so they cannot leave the immediate area without facing arrest. The success of the sweatshop can be attributed to the surplus of workers in less-developed countries where lack of taxes on imported goods make farming business crumble and people flood to the cities for work where more jobs have not been created, this surplus of workers leaves people desperate enough to find work at sweatshops appealing. He goes on to quote several economists who talk about sweatshops as a blessing because they create jobs and that they must be beneficial to the people because people continue to work there. Pollin disagrees with this saying that while they do create jobs that’s not to say they are a good thing, he sites many examples of countries where as wages rose, so did employment rates. This could punch a huge hole in people’s argument that raising wages would cause job losses. He goes on to discuss Bono’s attempt to raise money for developing countries and how the country would benefit much more from the establishment of the macro economic policies of the UN rather than raising Bono’s financial goal to aid the country. This makes sense to me because it seems that philanthropists like Bono only try to relieve the symptoms of poor economic policies rather than the cause, while noble it is also an inefficient use of effort, much more could be done if the countries policies were self sufficient. If sweatshops were made to pay their workers a living wage, Pollin calculates that it would only increase the cost of products by about 1.8%. Considering Americans have begun the practice of paying between 15 and 28% more for products guaranteed to have worker friendly business practices this would be one of the smarter moves on the part of the developing countries, they wouldn’t lose business and they could raise the standard of living in their country.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
For Traci Greenhalgh
The Landscape of Global Austerity by Robert Pollin talks about how living standards for everyone today are well above what any one ever seamed possible hundreds of years ago. In the 1900 the life span of some of the wealthiest people was only 60 years. From the 1940’s- to the 1960’s the government was promoting economic growth and increasing equality. Because this was during the cold war state socialism was the most influential and also the most contested we dominated economic thinking china Asia and many other countries. The government in these countries owned the entire means to production and their for the means for assets were filtered through the government. States with high socialist governments tried to keep high employment and equality in the handing out of what it controlled. Income, health care, housing and educational opportunities.
In Latin America they tried an approach called import-substituting industrialization and this was where developing countries should strengthen their ability to produce and manufacture goods for their own markets rather than exporting it and always using imported goods which are more expensive. This would benefit the entire country because local growers and buyers would get more money and all of the money would stay with in that place circulating. With all of these ideas their was lots of things that did not work out.
He marks the 1980’s as the point to transition out of the post world war II era of the development state policies and the ascendancy of neoliberalism. By the end of the 1990’s china had still not adopted neoliberal policies. The overall growth rate and per capita growth rate were significantly higher in the developmental state era than they were in the neoliberal era. But in china the growth rates were higher in the neoliberal era. The average increase in overall income in the poor and middle income countries just barley stayed ahead of population growth.
Economic growth in most developing countries has slowed substantially and income distribution has become more unequal their fro poverty in developing countries has worsened for the most part or has slowed. The most publicized global austerity has been the sweatshop labor conditions. Highly dealing with clothes and footwear. The most publicized US problem was with Nike shoes where people in Indonesia were making 14 pairs of shoes a day and earning 14 cents a hour.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Friedman
In the article, it discusses how in developing economies men nor women are expected to live until 45 years old. That was a very interesting fact to learn, only because 45 to me is still very young, and it is crazy to see that in the world today, there are still countries that have such hardships, they cannot provide to their people the way we take for granted. The economies in third world countries are nothing like we have, and we still always cry about our economic hardships, because we have seen better, but what if we never had anything like many countires in the world currently have? Would we still cry about not getting enough money on wall street, and not being able to take fancy vacations, or having our houses cleaned for us? How is it they can survive, and we sit around and cry about all of our problems? I never really thought about how greedy and ridiculous we were being until now.
We also have so many economic policies like free markets that we can’t get away from. We have crazy high interest rates, we have trade laws, so is this economy really running our lives on the flip side? Everything we do revolves around money and the economy, and is it ever going to change, or we going to continue to live our day to day lives around what the money of the economy is worth. So many people live off of $1-$2 a day in this world, and is that honestly possible, and still able to maintain health and live a happy life? I know that chances are, just because I am in the country I am in, it would very hard for me to do. So it’s very hard for me to grasp the concept of someone living this lifestyle, and having a life up to par.
Change In Politics
Within this article Michael Walzer explains and talks about the neoconservatives, and how they are the voice behind the change in politics. The neoconservatives according to Steinfels and Schuster “express a neo-sense of crisis and loss.” They live with one basic dilemma and that is that “the institutions they wish to conserve are to no small extent the institutions that have made the task of conservation so necessary and so difficult.”
The crisis that Steinfels speaks on is the fall of authority in governments, armies, universities, corporations, and churches. The head officers in charge of these establishments cannot command obedience or respect because the trust and deference have broken down. The neoconservatives are scholars and intellectuals, and people read there documented options’ because they have a different view on things than any other politics group. These groups of people are getting looked at more and more and people are taking them more seriously over time. Steinfels states that “this intelligent conservatism that America has lacked, and who’s absence has been roundly lamented by the American Left. “
The neo conservatives are liberal but they don’t have as strong of believe as a full blown out liberal. They think that no one person should be set on thinking one way because of a group that they are in. They believe that it set people free of religious and ethnic community; it abolishes control and agencies of control. They believe that it will generate free men and women and also radical individualism and then a radical competition among self seeking individuals. The reason why this liberalism didn’t work in the past was because people were still living in the past and was stuck on the old rules and ways of life.
Equality is another factor that makes the liberals nervous. They want all to be equal with the affirmative action, and the woman rights movement and the civil right movement it was a great step forward. They want to give merit to these minorities but to help them come up and try to put everything on a equal playing field but they don’t think that they would make it because the elite old men are the ones that carry the power and make all the money.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Where Have All the Unions Gone
In the article, Where Have All the Unions Gone… Long Time Passing?, Richard Freeman discusses the diminished population of union workers in 2005 as compared to 1984. Richard gives three reasons for the failing unions: 1) management fights unions because they raise wages and benefits, lowering profits. 2) Union leaders failed to address declining union worker participation. 3) Workers decided that unions did not serve their best interest.
Freeman describes the opposition by management in the U.S. in discussing their tactics of barraging their employees with anti-union material, denying union access to workers and “forecasting” the employees job loss (one-in-five union organizers are fired as a result of their participation in union campaigns)(Freeman 847). This is quite different from the European management tactics where management is supportive of unions who generally make organizing their labor easier. Unions aren’t seen as much of a burden because the citizens already have universal health care and they already pay fair wages. The unions are failing to gain members and are losing support and gaining opposition through failed campaigns. While its evident that the more problems a worker has with the work place the more they show interest in organized representation more people are interested in non-unionized representation, more like a manager and employee open forum.
While support for unions may be low it seems to me from the research presented in this article that if the U.S. ever manages to establish universal health care that opposition by businesses may decrease. Coupled with the use of open-source unionism as suggested by the author who would use the internet as a cheap means of organizing and informing their union workers this could begin to bring back the unions. Unions are essential for not only helping equalize the workplace and help ensure the comfortable lifestyle of their workers but they benefit small businesses, a small business that cooperates with unions are more attractive to the potential employees because while they can’t compete with large corporations in the wage arena, unions help establish benefits and a comfortable work environment for their employees. They give power to the traditionally powerless in a very democratic fashion.
Anyone who’s read Nickel and Dimed would know that American companies traditionally exploit their low wage workers because they have no ability to barter, if they argue they can quickly be replaced… but if they have the force of a union behind their back they aren’t as dismissible. Low wage workers need protection especially concerning that someone who works full time at minimum wage should not live below the poverty line.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Explaining American Exceptionalism
This chapter discusses that issues and poltics of social inequality in America . The author discusses that during the periods between the revolutionary and civil war. In this period blacks were freed from slavery and they were the primary labor force in the south, but they were not allowed to join unions, this weakened the unions that did exist. The New Deal is also discussed in relation to its cause of migration of blacks from the south to the north. This migration disabled the south’s ability to function as a separate nation. Americans soon had to face the idea of social equality, an issue that was brought to the forefront in the civil rights movements of the 1960s.
The author then goes on to analyze the attempt made to reconstruct racial politics. The three explainations offered are the policy centered approach, the legacy of the weak working class, and the legacy of strong liberal values. The policy centered approach states that the civil administration was not protected from partisan use and parties used government jobs to mobilize their clients and reward activists. Politicians battled over the spoils of office rather than programmatic appeals. The weak working class explaination is that the weakness of the American labor movement has been a product and producer of racial divisions. The explaination of the strong liberal values is that the liberal idea is to distrust the government and avoid government intervention. Support for interventions dissipates when civil right and liberties are in danger.
The last chapter of the book talks about the three welfare reforms and how they have failed in contributing to social equality. This failure is a failure to live up to American ideals of liberty and also democratic rights.
I feel the looming racial tension is caused by many of the things discussed in this chapter. I also feel that there are other factors that have played into the inequality of blacks. The effect that government policies have had on social inequality is profound. I feel that even before these policies were created there were people supporting the idea that blacks are inferior. There were many “scientific” breakthroughs that supposedly showed that blacks were inferior biologically and therefore were inferior to all other races. These arguments were ultimately shown to be false, but the mindset of Americans has not completely changed.
Propaganda was used then to keep the blacks inferior and I feel it is also used today through main stream media and stereotypical representations of black Americans. Although science has proven that there is hardly any variation between “races”, there is still a tensions between people of different races. I feel this tension is caused by our learned cultural identity and others perceptions of that identity.
Freeman: Where Have All the Unions Gone
Freeman takes an in-depth look at the unions of today and compares them to other countries and to the past trends the union has gone through. The first question is why unions in the U.S. are decreasing? Secondly, why do we care and why should we fix it? Freeman does a good job in the article but it doesn’t seem to apply to today’s world with fewer jobs than in 2005 when his studies where concluded.
The first question, where are the unions going? It can be equally blamed on three people Freeman thinks; the three major players in the battle for union are the workers, management, and the unions themselves. First off in today’s world jobs are harder to come by and it seems that most everyone knows someone who is laid off or unemployed; this could be the first reason for decline. When businesses are closing there is no need for a union and with most of Detroit’s auto industry quickly spiraling downward many union jobs have been cut. When jobs are diminished and there are so many people looking for work getting any job is better than not having a job. Although it would be nice to have a union to stand up for ones rights it preferably better to have a job when there is a line of people waiting to replace them. The Unions gain less strength when there is less dependence on them.
Second, Management doesn’t usually want unions that is in America, as Freeman states the European countries promote unions, “ by negotiating wages and conditions throughout the economy, unions reduced the need for small firms to worry about those issues” (Freeman pg. 848). Management in America strongly dislikes the unions because of their power. Having worked for a company that is unionized it is easy to see why unions are harmful to big business. There are more rights everyone gets 3 breaks, equal pensions, overtime pay, the list is extensive but it is also harder to fire those who are in the union when they aren’t performing their duties. In the text Wal-Mart is mentioned as not welcoming unions this is true if unions are allowed they have to pay a better wage holiday pay ad who knows what else might get added to the list. Look up reasons why Wal-Mart needs to unionize and the list is extensive. They can cut hours to nearly nothing, if overtime is earned it is often placed on next weeks paycheck, mandatory cleanup off clock; why is Wal-Mart allowed to get away with this? Like mentioned above there is a line of people wanting that job so complaining will only get you fired.
Finally the unions are to blame. Spending much of their budgets on political endeavors they did little in the way of increasing membership size. They need to work on new was of converting big businesses into seeing how they can be helpful. By allowing unions to move into businesses we can decrease the sex/race pay gaps and make everyone one equal this is Freeman’s idea it seems, will it work? It surely wont work if there are no unions operating 20 years from now.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Power
The reading Power by G. William Domhoff begins by defining power and splitting it into two dimensions. The first is collective power which is more of an organizational form for countries, utilizing technology and resources to accomplish goals. The second is distributive power or the ability to be successful in conflict with other groups classes or nations. Domhoff moves on to analyze the power structure of the United States, when the country began there was really no infrastructure to deal with. There were no economic aristocrats, churches or established military to protect borders giving economic elites free reign over the market. This is how the power elite has been created, and through policy expertise and political success they have been able to maintain a dominant status within our country.
The structure of the power elite is rather intricate and is comprised of the social upper class, corporate community, and policy planning networks. They have created what domhoff called a four network party which is made up of the, special interest process, policy planning process, opinion-shaping process, and candidate selection process. They then use this power to lobby people and create legislature, change the way we think about issues, tell us who to elect, tell us what to think, and basically try to sway us to fulfill their own agenda. What I have gained from this reading is that there is most definitely a group of money and power hungry Americans at the top trying to control every move we make. They have us by the balls and there is nothing we can do about it. Quite frankly it pisses me off. The few people at the top are using their money and power to create legislature that controls masses of people. The reading said that the power elite makes up one percent of the total population. It baffles me when I think of it, how are people getting away with this? The reading talks about the 2 previous elections the 2004 bush administration and the 2008 Obama victory. Bush and his administration made it seem like the war in Iraq was escalating to get back in office, and Obama used the faltering economy to win his way into office. I would be willing to be my last dollar that just about every election in the United States history has been swung in one way or another. These people control what goes in to our food, what clothes we wear, what we see on the television, internet, radio, what drugs you take, you name it and they probably have control over it. It disgusts me to think about the amount of trust that we as Americans put into these corporate leaders and politicians. Because from my angle it seems that these people are not pursuing the best interests of all people of this country but rather for the fat stack that hey hold in their wallet and the filet mignon that they are stuffing their faces with every night for dinner. Wake up people we are not free we are simply pawns in the chess game of the elite.
Money and Politics
The article, Money and Politics, Dan Clawson the author shows how money plays an influential role in politics. During a campaign, candidates have fundraisers which generate huge amounts of money. Clawson explains why money is so important in a election. There is definitely an inequality in politics because of this reason.
In an election, we see the candidate who is successful normally win. The person who loses or has to drop out is because of the amount of money it costs to stay in the race.
Politicians normally have a good amount of money and have relationships with big corporations. This article shows how some of the big corporations donate money to politician’s campaigns. In doing this, these corporate members hope to get some access and be a influence on congress. The candidates ask for money but the donors ask for something in return. The campaign member and donors have to work out some sort of deal to benefit the business. When talking about how business benefit from donating money to campaigns, businesses do not think about how it affect’s the poor people of America. Big companies only think about themselves and not others outside their company. The reason the campaign asks businesses or corporations is because of the vast number of resources they have. In my opinion, one of the things that stuck out to me in the article was that only half of our population takes part in voting. These people come from the working class or the lower class. This confused me because I thought that these people would want to vote to change some policies to help them out. Overall, the author showed great examples and visual aids to support his claims. The difference between parties in our government was shown also. I found this to be interesting an did not know how different they really were. One of the visual aid showed how much money some of the CEO’s donated, for anyone to donate 100,000 to a campaign in my mind is crazy. These people are close with the candidate because of this reason.
Typically, in a election who ever generates the most money wins. This is not right but this is how it works. This is another reason why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. These people at the top have close relations with each other because of wealth and do things for one another like donate money for campaigns.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
The Right to Vote & Unequal Participation by Manza
In the introduction of this article, John Manza states that “the blunt truth is that politicians are under no compulsion to pay much heed to classes and groups of citizens that do not vote”. Manza then points out how elections are supposed to produce an approximation of what the people want, yet those who have more resources are the ones more likely to vote. These differences are drawn from two reasons; first, people are unable or simply choose not to participate, and secondly, legal barriers prevent others from voting. The result is numerous examples of rising inequality, especially between the rich and the poor. Manza points out two typical reasons behind why this inequality exists; the first being how political money shapes the interests of those at the top, and the second being a dominating business-oriented Republican party. Although these reasons have validity, Manza goes on to capture the full range of details behind this voting inequality.
The American constitution does not guarantee universal suffrage (the right of each citizen to cast one ballot for each election). Ah, here lies part of the problem. Manza goes on to give a history of voting rights in the United States, and about how many oppressed groups weren’t allowed to vote at various periods in American history. Now, “an illiterate, homeless, property-less, African American woman on government assistance, who has unpaid debts and who moved to a new state” cannot be denied the right to vote. However, there are important exceptions to “everyone” having the ability to vote; legal (and illegal) immigrants and convicted felons. Over time, millions of immigrants have become part of the voting age population, but only the “naturalized” subset has the right to vote. The rising incarceration rate that plagues the United States has lead to millions of convicted citizens unable to vote (2.75% of voting eligible population unable to vote at the 2004 election due to current or past felony convictions). This disenfranchisement leads to a skewing of the eligible electorate upward, since immigrants and felons tend to be drawn from the bottom of the social class ladder, resulting in a growing share of the poor unable to express themselves.
Not only do these groups provide a voting dilemma, but the United States also has generally low levels of turnout even for those who are able to vote. Political and institutional explanations for this turn to a set of participating constraints (ie: requiring voter to register a head of time, timing of elections, and narrow range of meaningful choices) and mobilization efforts by social movements and party organizations, all of which make it hard for those poorer individuals to vote.
With this information presented, I would like to compare what was just said to that of the 2008 election, which I am sure would surprise the author of this article with the increased amount of participation, especially among African American voters. With such a huge increase in participation, I would like to see what comparisons could be made between what happened in the 2008 election and that of which was discussed in the article; ie: did Manza point something out that was wrong with our voting system that was changed or altered in the 2008 election?
Money and Politics
This article is dealing with how money and politics in the United States parallels with each other and how important the money factor is when considering who wins the Presidential seat, Congress, Senate, House of Representatives, ect. This political inequality within money and politics is easy to see in my opinion. This system of how money and politics works is just as bad and shows the inequality as it did in the 1970’s with the Nixon campaign.(Not as bad, they have shown strict rules and regulations since then).
The current system shuns down any candidate that can’t raise large amounts of money for his/her campaign. Unless a candidate can gain significant support from those people who have money, he/she can’t stand in the public debate and basically has no chance in winning what so ever. In my opinion and what the author points out, is this has a lot to do with power, especially media power and big corporations, or people with a lot of money.
In my opinion, a lot of this is a scandal, and meetings take place between large, rich corporations, and candidates. The candidates wants the money of course so he/she can run, and is willing to bend the deal al little bit if it favors the candidate and it favors the large corporation, but in the end hurts the poorest people in America, or the 99 percent who do not own the means in this society. Clawson even points out how members of congress have reworked or manipulated people by helping out the rich, large corporate businesses by cutting them a share of the pie, without the people obviously knowing they are not getting screwed over in the district.
You can even look at President Obama, who I voted for and like as a president, and his money campaign and supported him. Jay-Z, a well known rapper who uses words that President Obama would probably not like to hear his daughters listen to, donate a large portion of money to his campaign. I like when the author pointed out how you have people who hold conferences, picket lines attacking companies and its policies on such things, but then turn their backs in Congress and cooperate with the same companies, and act like best friends. It is hypocrisy.
If it benefits the corporation, and benefits the person running for office, then the obligation is to come together and work out a deal. I believe the author shows great statistics throughout the chapter and uses a visual aide with graphs showing the differences between parties. One table showed the total number of dollars raised for republican and democratic Presidential seat, Congress, Senate, House of Rep. It showed that in the 2000 election, Republicans raised for money in all the seats except one. In my opinion, the government and the people running for office will do whatever it takes to get their hands on money, because it shows that whoever raises the most money usually has the best shot at winning any election.
Monday, November 9, 2009
How Unequal? America's Invisible Policy Choices.
This article begins by talking about one general pattern of American social policy, which is to provide, with one hand, limited direct help to some poor and indirectly to subsidize, with another, the middle class and the wealthy. Next this article uncovers one of the most hidden arenas of social policy, the regulation of the labor market, and show how the ground rules shape inequality. Then, it examines higher education to get a better understanding of the diverse ways in which public investment also molds inequality. This article will help us better understand the major reasons why inequality is historically so inconstant and why inequality in America is so high.
The article talks about how the American government has done much to help lose left poor by the market. It talks about how some programs have been successful and some have not, who the programs have helped and who they hurt. They even talk about how a lot of the programs overlap. Then they explain why so many American children are poor, this is because young parents are more susceptible to poverty and because so many children live in single-parent families with very little income.
In contrast to the highly visible, direct and indirectly aid is given to the poor, American social policy tends to subsidize the middle class more generously, but indirectly and less visibly. The invisible polices for subsidizing the middle class are subsidizing home-ownership, housing and discrimination, health and health care, and subsidizing families. Also there is another set of subsidies that often goes unremarked: those that are directly or indirectly helpthe very wealthy.
Finally the article talks about how public investment also shape inequality. Some investments, like clean water or public parks, improve everyone's quality of life up and down the income ladder. Other investments benefits some of us more than others. The most important investment that affects us all but in different ways and is what the article focuses on and that is how much public higher education people are receiving.
What this article sums up to be about is that the inequality in America today is in great measure a result of policy decisions Americans have made or have not made.
How Unequal? America's Invisible Policy Choices
In Fischer and friends' article on America's policies, the authors focus on a few specific policy choices that our nation has adopted and how those policies have led to such inequality in our country. The authors introduce the subject and liken our current situation to a baseball pitcher on a heightened mound, as that advantage favors some over others when it comes to marketplace laws and regulations. They then pinpoint the problem by stating that the United States has the greatest disparity in earnings among full-time workers in world, and it has been increasing since 1970.
The first aspect tackled in the article deals with visible policy, and reducing poverty through redistribution. The authors talk about how our government has done things to help the poor in our country, with public health programs, food stamps, survivor benefits etc. However, it's quick to see that Americans fall short when compared to government spending of other countries on similar endeavors, while at the same time cutting more and more programs. While most emphasis these days is put on the poverty of the elderly, with reduced proportions of up to 40 percentage points due to government programs, it leaves children and young adults behind, with drops of only seven and five points respectively. In 1992, over 14% of Americans, and 21% of American children remained below the poverty level, which begs the question: what are our government leaders doing to help protect the future of our country and it's young people?
The rest of the article focused on the "invisible" policies, including subsidizing the middle class, subsidizing the wealthy and regulating the labor market. The authors explain the subsidizing of the middle class by talking about while the middle class indirectly and less visibly benefit from the government, there is a decreasing inequality between the middle class and wealthy but at the same time an increasing disparity between middle-class and low-income Americans. The authors talk of tax expenditures, or deductions in things like mortgage interest, as things that may benefit some taxpayers more than others. Whatever one person receives as a tax break, another person might have to make up for because government spending relies on taxpayer money. As middle-class home ownership increased, thus decreasing the inequality between the middle-class and wealthy, many black Americans were denied these opportunities with new policies. It appears that the government sees black neighborhoods as a poor "business investment", proving the continuous discrimination of low-income Americans in housing policies.
The authors then go on to talk about how wealthy people in the United States have benefited from some of these policies, such as tax changes of the Reagan administration that provided "tax cuts" that actually increased the median American family's rates from 23.7 to 24.6 percent in 1990, all while the highest-earning 1% of Americans fell from 35.5 to 26.7 in 1989. Once again we can see how our country's elected officials protect their own interests and those in power while suppressing those without it. It's how capitalism works in this country and it's the policies kept in place that create the inequalities here, both those that are easily seen and those strategically hidden to keep the average American in the dark.
Who Rules America Today?
With his article "Power" G. William Domhoff examines where the power lies in the past and in contemporary America. Domhoff's efforts analyze and define power in the United States as well as provide a history of its development from our country's creation to today. The evolution of the political and social landscape is given particular attention with a perspective focused on the influences of the power elite.
Domhoff provides a two part definition of power in the opening pages of his article to provide a more directed look for his explanation of the power base in America. With that in mind he continues to describe the difference in the development of the power base in America in contrast to most European countries. We're told how without competition of an established aristocracy or a dominant church entity it left the landowners no competition for their power and the government little avenue of achieving dominant power over them. Further, the traditionally limited powers of the federal government established by the Constitution also contributed to the inability of political entities to gain independence from the economically powerful.
The majority of Domhoff's article is spent examining this relationship between the power-holders of the economically elite and the political arms throughout the various historical periods of our country. Attention is given to the methods this social upper class and the power elite use to influence the policy makers in the government and exert their power, methods such as lobyists and think tanks.
Domhoff's article is ultimately a detailed examination of relationship that many know to exist. However, it provides an enlightening look at how this exercise of power has developed and been allowed to develop as well as an eye opening look at the degree to which it is used. Most would assume the ultimate power in this country is held by the federal government and its elected officials. Domhoff successfully details the influence of the economic elite in their use of power over politics and the promotion of their interests in America's past and present.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Gender and Race Discrimination in Retail Car Negotiations
I still don’t understand when these are supposed to be posted, I wrote down Tuesday November 3rd, but if it is late, I am really sorry.
Ayres and Siegelman’s article discussed whether or not salesman at car dealerships discriminated against women and minorities when negotiating prices for cars. This was conducted in 1990 in more than two hundred dealerships. The testers of different gender and race would go in and use specific negotiation strategies with the car salesmen to try and bargain with them. They also had uniform appearance and behavior so that only race and gender played a role in treatment and “class” didn’t. The results were not surprising.
Ayres/Siegelman state, “Dealerships offered white males significantly lower prices than blacks and women. The average prices offered white women were more than $200 higher than the offers to white men, the offers to black women were more than $400 higher than those to white men, and the offers to black men were more than $900 higher.” Obviously, anyone can see that this is sexist and racist. The other point that Ayres and Siegelman make that I really like is when they stat, “A central purpose of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was to guarantee that “a dollar in the hands of a Negro will purchase the same thing as a dollar in the hands of a white man.”
Professor Rudy gave the perfect explanation the other day on why this is; our society is racist. And I can honestly say that I don’t think it will ever change. Although the Civil Rights Act of 1866 has helped our society with some racism, it hasn’t changed it all. I feel that because I am a white woman, I really only experience sexism. So I don’t really have much to deal with when it comes to racism but I see it all around me. And I can definitely say that if I were one of those testers walking into car dealerships and getting charged more for a car because I’m a woman, I would be extremely pissed off! I think this study is very interesting and I do not want to repeat myself a lot (from my last summary), but like I said, our society is racist and sexist. This will never change. I think it’s pathetic and sad that car salesmen are even allowed to do this to women and minorities, but that’s life. It’s unfair. I hope that since this study was done almost 20 years ago, things have changed, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they didn’t.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Invisible Inequality: Social Class and Childrearing in Black Families and White Families- Annette Lareau
Lareau Believes that class position influenced critical aspects of family life. These aspects included time use, language use and kin ties. She also believes that middle class-parents, both white and black, tend to conform to a logic of chilrearing Called “concerted cultivation”. This is where they enroll their children in numerous age specific organized activities that dominate family life and create enormous labor, particularly for mothers. Parents believe that these activities help their children with important life skills. When defining cultivation, this approach results in a wider range of experiences for children but also creates a frenetic pace for parents, a cult of individualism within the family and an emphasis on children’s performances.
In Lareau’s research, her data was collected in three different phases. Phase one involved observations in 3rd grade classrooms, Phase two took place at two sites in northern Richmond, and phase 3 involved home observations of 12 children and their families in the Northeast who had been previously interviewed. The research showed the different family setting in each child’s life, the different languages or conversations that children have with their parents and lastly different activities that each child were a part of. I agree with many of these statistics and findings however, some of them may not always be the case. For instance, Lareau believed that working=class and poor families were much less likely to include professionals in their social networks but were much more likely than her middle-class counterparts to see or speak with kin daily. I kind of disagree with this statement because a lot of time children get connections from friends or from school. Often times it is not always the parent that helps with the connection. One thing I found interesting was the differences in education resources. It is obvious that if you are in the middle-class you are more likely to have money to pay for a private school rather than someone who is in the working-class. However, many times children can get scholarships. Many of these statistics were interesting however, I feel that many times you can disagree or argue that they may not always be true.
Gender/Race Discrimination in Retail Car Negotiations
Ayres and Siegelman’s article discusses their study regarding gender and race in the new car buying market. They sought to determine if gender and race lead to discrimination by the dealership, which forces minorities and women to pay more for the same products.
Their study required two people (always a white male and either a black male, white female, or black female) to visit a dealership and engage in price negotiations with a salesman. The testers were trained ahead of time to provide the same information and bargain in the same fashion to ensure their results were based solely on their race and/or gender.
The researchers looked at two factors: the short test (the salesman’s initial offer) and the long test (the final offer given to the tester after negotiating). The results of the white male were compared to each of the other three’s results to determine the price disparity between them.
The study undoubtedly found that white males fare the best in car-buying situations. The profit the dealership would make off a white male after the initial offer and the final offer were $725 and $418, respectively. Black men were asked to pay $962 and $1133, respectively. Black females were asked to initially pay 65% more than white males. White females’ initial and final offers were only $200 more than males, but this difference is still pronounced.
Previous similar tests showed discrimination in the types of questions dealers ask of the different races and sexes. For example, “sellers asked black female testers more often about their occupation, about financing, and whether they were married” (757). The study also found discrepancy in the tactics salesmen used to sell a car. For instance, they often tried to sell cars to women based on the color, gas mileage and dependability. Finally, they found dealers are less willing to disclose cost data to black testers, specifically black women. This “undermine[s] their ability to bargain as effectively as whites and thus facilitates price discrimination based on race” (758).
All of the information gained from the study showed there is strong discrimination in the car retail market. The reading didn’t offer theories about why is happens or solutions to end it, but it gave strong evidence that it definitely occurs.
It seems interesting that white males have the best opportunity to earn the highest pay of these four groups. And dealers know this, yet they still cut them the biggest break. It doesn’t make much sense to charge more money to the groups that statistically have the hardest time. If white males can stereotypically afford to pay more for a car, you would think the dealer would want to take advantage of that and charge THEM more. However, maybe the salesmen also stereotypically assume white males have the best education, and they are less likely to be able to pull one over on them.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Broken Bloodlines: The External Gender Environment
In this chapter on the external gender environment, Patterson explains how African-American women are not in fact victims of both their gender and their ethnicity. He argues that African-American women are definitely grouped in with gender discrimination, but not ethnicity discrimination, despite what others may believe.
Patterson starts out by telling us that these days, African-American men are at a greater risk for gender discrimination within their own ethnicity than African-American women. In fact, women of all ethnic groups experience higher levels of poverty than men. He goes on to say that there is little evidence of a “double burden” of gender and ethnic prejudice. African-American women are now making more money than they ever have, and soon will surpass African-American men in income levels. African-American women have come a long way and are now achieving a bachelor’s degree or higher in some cases. Patterson then ends his argument about inequalities in the economic world by pointing out that African-American women do indeed suffer gender biases, but it is equally suffered with Euro-American women as well.
He then goes on to discuss the life chances between men and women. He found that African-American women have a greater life expectancy than that of African-American and Euro-American men, and are fast catching up with Euro-American women. So we can see that African-American women are not at a total loss. Also Patterson discussed the suicide rate briefly. He found that African-American men are 6.2 times more likely to commit suicide than African-American women.
Patterson then goes back to the education factor. He states that in all other ethnic groups, women have been surpassing men in the number of bachelor’s degrees since the early eighties. I thought this fact was quite amazing. The fact that African-American women have come so far in this world is quite impressive, yet knowledge of this seems to be slim to none. If we were to look at the patterns in the workplace, we would learn that African-American women are sometimes at a benefit because of the fact that they are treated more as a professional simply because men do not view them as sexually attractive or as a “women” so to speak. Patterson then wraps things up by stating once again, that African-American women are not at a “double burden” for both gender and ethnic discrimination, they are simply in the same boat as any woman around the world.
Race, Class Gender as Categories
Men still think that race and gender have means of power, but when it came to women and African Americans who had more power since they were in the minority group, so to speak. I like the point made about how oppression is full of contradictions. We tell our children not continue oppression yet we put ourselves in that situation and continue to support it.
I also like the point and agree with the point that was made about how we need to stop saying who is more oppressed than who. We need to do something about it rather than sit back and argue who is more oppressed. We keep placing ourselves in groups based on gender, class and race that is making groups who have more power become more oppressing to lower groups. If we stop placing each other in groups then there would be no need to have someone who has more power than everyone else.
Stereotypes are such a huge issue when we are not the same as another person. This is causing others to become oppressive, we need to stop judging others and start understanding that we are all different and have something different to offer. We all have different experiences because of who we are.
I like her point at the end talking about how we have to change the world, and even though we have our race and that is pre-set for who we are, we can change how we act and can eventually have change.
Broken Bloodlines: The External Gender Environment
In this article, Orlando Patterson spends a great deal of time examining the “burdens” and gender discrepancies in regards to Afro-American men and women, Euro-American men and women, and Latino men and women in some instances. It was once thought that Afro-American women were at a greater gender risk than the males were but this is no longer the case. Additionally, women do bear the greater burden than their male counterparts. “Afro-American women writers and leaders have claimed for some time that they share a double burden, being victims of both their gender and their ethnicity.” Following are the attempts that have been made at figuring out the factors that affect the lives of the Afro-American people.
The study starts by examining the level of poverty by gender. This was compared among the Afro-American, Euro-American, and Latino people. From the data gathered is apparent that women face higher poverty levels than men in general, which can be caused by many things. The fact that there is a great amount of female headed households may play a role in this data. It is sad to say, but females have always been among the poor; moreover, as past articles have addressed, women tend to get paid less on average than men do. Although, this rate of pay has increased to some degree.
This leads to the next set of data, which deals with the median earnings by educational attainment, ethnicity, and gender. This data was looked at with Afro-American men and women and Euro-American men and women. The data showed that Euro-American have the highest degrees and greatest pay, followed by Afro-American men, Euro-American women, and Afro-American women being last. Unfortunately, if I had to guess what the statistics were to show, this is what I would have assumed. Last, on the money issue, when comparing the median earnings by educational attainment with gender and ethnic ratios to search for double burdens of race and gender in economic matters, there are none.
When examining the life expectancies at birth by gender and ethnicity, the results are of no surprise to me. They showed that Euro-American women have the greatest life expectancy, followed by Afro-American women, Euro-American men, and Afro-American men. It has been known for some time that women tend to live longer than men. More interestingly, when looking at the same factors, but making projections for the future, it is displayed that all groups will continue to live longer except for Afro-American men, which appears to level off at some point.
Of course when we examine life expectancies, we must then look at death rates. The results show that Afro-American men have the highest death rates, followed by Euro-American men, Afro-American women, and then Euro-American women. This makes sense to me because men tend to be involved in more dangerous affairs. Suicide rates show almost the same results with men being more prone to death by suicide, except that Euro-Americans come before the Afro-Americans in this. I always thought suicide was higher among women.
These results were interesting and even more interesting were the accounts as to what may contribute to these findings from the book. Some of the results were consistent with what I would have imagined, but some were far from my thinking. So the beginning statement of the article dealing with Afro-American women facing double burdens from both ethnicity and gender can be proven as being false for the majority of the population. Afro-Americans are on a rise from where they once have been, but Orlando Patterson claims that their sex roles are what is holding them back, which I guess could be true for all women.
Monday, October 26, 2009
The Problem of Power
Sorry this is late! Along with the rest of campus I have been sick for about a week and a half, while being slightly sedated by the codine cough syrup I was prescribed I wrote down both of my summaries as November instead of October. Thanks for your patience!
In the piece Markets, Marriages, and other Mates: The Problem of Power, the power struggle between husband and wife is studied. The focus is on how each marital role is valued and how the contribution of power within the relationship is based on the individuals ability to provide for the marriage financially. Historically the husband is expected to be the breadwinner of the family and the wife is expected to supply the domestic support. Both partners make investments in a marriage that are either general ( basic needs) or relationship specific (only benefit inside on the relationship).
The authors propose that women have a disadvantage when it comes to the power contribution of marriage. They tend to provide more relationship specific investments that only pay off if they stay in the marriage. Their investments are not as tangible as the working husband and cannot be redeemed outside of the marriage. The husband provides the basic needs of the family and therefore has more bargaining power with the marriage because he could survive outside of it. The only way for a homemaker to cash in on her marital investments and training if the marriage fails is to remarry. Without the husband they would not be able to meet the basic needs for themselves and their family, giving women less bargaining power in the relationship. Women also learn culturally to be more selfless than men and tend to not push the bargaining stage as far as men.
In the last fifty years women have been entering the workforce by storm, not needed to depend on a husband as much as in the past. This article links the increase in divorce rates with the increase in female employment. Women have gained more power in the relationship but the domestic duties also still fall on the wife. Wives are more likely to exit a relationship when they are unhappy then in the past because of their ability to provide basic needs for themselves .
I do agree that women have a disadvantage in the power struggle of marriage based on cultural beliefs. In western society women are expected to be more subordinate and passive than men, and are often given negative responses if they come off “too masculine”. The study mentioned that this may be linked historically to women being better slaves then men but I feel in western society it is linked more to religion. Many religions view women as being inferior to men based on religious teachings such as Adam and Eve. Marriage between a man and woman is not only a civic union but a religious one for the majority of people. Therefore giving the wife even more pressure to naturally be a good mother and wife.
I also agree with the notion that female employment has increased the divorce rate in recent years. Women have much greater opportunities than in the past, even though they are unequal to men. I feel that this fact has changed the purpose and dynamic of marriage. Marriage was almost key to survival for most women in the past and now that they can function as an independent unit, marriage is not as necessary. This gives women a greater opportunity to leave a marriage if they are unhappy. I feel that this has affected what we look for in a partner, instead of each person looking for a “business partner”, the idea of marriage has been romanticized. Men and women are not just looking for someone to support them financially or provided domestic duties anymore, they are looking for a true compatibility and honest connection. Because women can now offer more, they are expecting more of their own needs to be met.
Overall I feel the traditional roles and values of marriage are outdated. Historically if began as a business transaction where each person had a specific duty to fulfill. Now that both partners are able to provide the same contributions that value of marriage has shifted to how well the other person fulfills emotional and supportive roles. With this being said I also believe that your upbringing and cultural identity contributes a lot to your role in a marriage. You are more likely to be content in specific role if that is all you have ever known.
I feel this is why I have a more egalitarian expectation of marriage, rather than the power being proportioned unequally. I grew up with my father being a single parent of myself and my three brothers. Being self -dependent was a major value in my family. I feel that this gave me an advantage in life and relationships. I was taught to hunt, rebuild a car motor, and expected to contribute to manual labor chores right along side my brothers. On the other hand my brothers and I were expected to contribute to household chores equally. Because of these values I feel that If I decide to get married, It would have to be with someone that holds similar values and embraces joint participation in every aspect of the relationship.
Race, Class, Gender
First I would like to say sorry for being a little late and not being so thorough. I have the flu and have had it since Saturday so I’m not all “here.”
In this article, Collins discusses oppression and how people classify themselves and also relate themselves to other social groups. Collins also talks about how people identify with certain types of oppression and how the view other group’s oppression. I find this article very interesting and one reason is because I can identify myself with an oppressed group since I am a woman. I like the part where Collins’ states, “White feminists routinely point with confidence to their oppression as women but resist seeing how much their white skin privileges them.” I like this statement a lot because this kind of stuff happens every day.
People are so worried about what type of oppression they identify with that they don’t see the brighter side of things; that some people actually have it worse off than they do. Life was not created to be a giant pity party. Sexism, Racism, Discrimination. These are very real and they will never go away. The problem with our society is that so many people focus so much on it and can’t give it a rest so it continues. It’s a never ending cycle. Every person on this earth is a part of the human race. It shouldn’t matter if we have dark skin, or light skin, or a penis, or a vagina, or a million dollars, or twenty dollars. What matters is that we all need education, we all came from a family (good or bad), we all need jobs, we all want happiness, etc. Most people feel that if they identify with the dominant group, they live a way better life than anyone who identifies with the subordinate group; I don’t believe this to be true. I believe that life is what you make of it, not matter what group you identify with. This may be because I haven’t had to deal with as many hardships because my skin is white and my parents are well off but I personally don’t think that matters. My mother was extremely high up in her company and was the 2nd person with seniority in her office, but she got laid off while a bunch of men, under her, kept their jobs. Anyone from the outside would realize that it was complete bullshit and sexist, but that’s life. I hate to say this but women will never have it as easy as men, the poor will never have it as easy as the rich, and blacks will never have it as easy as whites. White men are the least oppressed group while black women are the most oppressed group. Although it is bullshit, it’s been this way for many years.
I also like where Collins states, “Adhering to a stance for comparing and ranking oppressions—the proverbial, “I’m more oppressed than you”—locks us all into a dangerous dance of competing for attention, resources, and theoretical supremacy.” I would really like to know why people even waste their time stating things like that. Dwelling on it isn’t going to get them anywhere. If anything, it’s going to get people to stereotype and have prejudice against them even more. Life’s everyday experiences are what make people different and who they are. It’s pathetic that people focus so much on someone’s skin color, hair color, private parts, etc. There are a hell of a lot more important things to worry about then that. There will always be the rich and the poor, there will always be the whites and the blacks, and there will always be men and women. But one thing we all have in common is that we are all human beings. We go through many different experiences daily, but that’s what makes us unique. Life isn’t fair and it will never be fair, to anyone. I’m going to finish this with the quote by Nikki Giovanni in Collins’ article because I feel like she makes a great point. “We’ve got to live in the real world. If we don’t like the world we’re living in, change it. And if we can’t change it, we change ourselves. We can do something.”
The Problem of Power
Type/paste your first paragraph here
Marital power has a great deal with who makes more money in the relationship. I agree with some of the points that were made. The person who makes more in the relationship usually has the most power in the relationship overall. Like who decides certain decisions is usually the male because usually he makes more money.
Type/post rest of the post here
Forces that they discussed are for a male dominated society about how males earn more. It also talks about how because women do more domestic work they do not have the power in the relationship, but I think that doing the domestic work gives her more power. She decides when dinner is, what happens at what time and certain household decisions.
Women play an important role in their families life, though it is not money based it is the structure that the family needs to survive. If I think back to who was raising me and had the most impact on my life it would be my mom. Who do people thank when they give speeches, their mom? It does not matter who makes more money in the family but who makes the impact on the person’s life, they have the power. When I look at who makes the decisions in my family, it is always my mom who has the final say even though my dad makes more money. I do not think that it is the person who makes more money has power but rather who makes the bigger impact on the family.
It really has nothing to do with who makes more money but rather who has the bigger impact has the most power. The points that were made I disagreed with but I do agree with the point that was made about how men marry in exchange for what the other person offers. Men look for a mate who will do the domestic household work and women look for a mate who will financially support them. I also agree with the point about in most custody cases the mother gets full custody of the children, the system knows who is better at raising a child, and that is why most mothers stay home and raise the kids while the fathers go and work. I do not look at my relationships as investments when looking for someone to marry or someone who will support me while I raise my kids.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Sex and Violence
Rhode’s writing on Sex and Violence is my favorite of all the readings we’ve done this year. She offers a thorough explanation of the types of violence that occur, who the victims and perpetrators are, why it happens, theories and solutions to the problem; all done while speaking in a somewhat sarcastic, sharp manner and calling out ignorant critics, judges, and general public who refuse to admit there is a problem.
She draws attention to the fact that recognition of sexual abuse is a recent advancement in our nation’s history. However, denial of the extent of the problem still isn’t fixed. Many people believe rape, harassment, and pornography are about sex, when in reality they are about subordination. “We fail to see sexual abuse as a strategy of dominance, exclusion, control, and retaliation—as a way to keep women in their place and out of men’s” (595). Many people deny the problem exists, that the victims are seriously injured physically and emotionally, that men are responsible despite the tendency to blame the victim, and that legislation is the solution. (595).
Rhodes criticizes people who believe the courts are flooded with frivolous harassment accusations; that men have become victims of overreactions and hypersensitivity. Sexual abuse complaints are HIGHLY underreported, and often it is easier for a woman to ignore the problem or deal with it internally than to complain. Complaining often makes things worse because, “the minimal remedies usually available may not compensate for the risks of retaliation, such as transfers, demotion, informal blacklisting, physical threats, and vandalism” (599). Women often face a no-win situation. Rhodes’ solutions for this include clear workplace policies, educational programs, sufficient legal representation, and unbiased complaint outlets. (600)
Outside of the workplace, domestic violence is sickeningly prevalent and the leading cause of female injuries, leading to four million victims a year. (600) Denial of it’s pervasiveness is due to two things: the men who batter and the system that allows it. These “family matters” are frequently discounted as “an unfortunate incident” and acceptable within a marriage. Women are often blamed for not leaving violent situations, when in reality it may be impossible to find a safe refuge when they are dependent on their batters for economic, social and emotional support. Rhodes stresses the need for stricter punishments and more funding for programs to help victims with few resources.
The United States has the highest reported cases of rape in the Western world. Yet the reasons for why rape occurs generally blame women. Individuals and institutions deny the problem and are deeply convinced of stereotypes about rape, including that they are done by sexually deviant strangers with weapons, that attractive men don’t rape because they don’t have to, and that “’nice girls’” aren’t assaulted; ‘loose’ and ‘careless’ women are” (605). However, rapists indicate they are attracted to power and domination, or they desire to punish women for one reason or another. Within the judicial system, there is a belief that sexual assault without other physical injuries isn’t really harmful, its just bad sex. The woman’s emotional trauma is discounted, even though it may cause her deep turmoil as she questions her choices, judgment and sense of trust.
The heart of the problem is social inequality. “As long as [women’s] status and economic security depend so much on relationships with men, the conditions for sexual abuse will persist” (610). Egalitarian sexual experiences must be created in order to end female objectification and victimization. The denial must end and steps need to be taken to stop the abuse.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Sex and Violence
This article is about sexual harassment and how it affects and is affected by men and women. Rhode talks about how the victims are generally the ones that are trying to defend themselves in court not the alleged perpetrators. She says that a lot of Americans believe that sexual harassment is over exaggerated and that it really doesn’t happen that much when it actually happens quite frequently. She said that 90% of women under 50 in the military have been sexually harassed even though they claim to have a zero tolerance policy. She also talks about how many people feel that a woman would be much better off to just not even mention the things that happen.
I completely agree with this, which is unfortunate. There are a lot of setting at work where someone will “jokingly” say something inappropriate to a woman and really what other choice does she have than to just laugh it off. If you go and make a formal complaint then you were have many more repercussions to face which might just end your job. Its horrible.
Rhode talks about several very vulgar and humiliating instance that women have been put in by men and when it was taken to court the judge said that they really didn’t have a case. In some ways this shocked me and in other ways it didn’t.
She says that not only do we need to respond to the people that are engaging in these actions but in the institutions that are perpetuating them. I agree with this statement. Unless workplaces are really going to get behind their policies than I wouldn’t expect any significant changes.
She also talks about violence against women. It has been found that judges devalue aggression and domestic violence when it is brought to the courtroom. They say that women “exaggerate.” She says that 90% of domestic assaults and a majority of domestic violence arrests never result in prosecution and less than 10% of those that do result in any jail time.
People feel that if there was really a problem the women would leave the relationship but seriously?? How do they expect these women to leave when someone, bigger and stronger and very threatening, is telling them everyday that if she leaves him he will kill her? The legal system is not taking the time to look at the thought process and the mental state of battered and abused women. Many times they feel that they just cannot get out and I find this information really frustrating.
The topic of rape is covered as well. There is of course the stereotype that good guys don’t rape women and only sluts get raped. Clearly this is false. There is the misconception that rape is about sexual gratification when really it is about power and domination. There are just so many things that people do not understand that leads to the way society views these problems. Most women are raped by men they know, not strangers. Up until not that long ago, isn’t wasn’t even a crime for a wife to be raped by her husband, she was his property and he could do what he pleased with her.
All of this is just crazy I think and I also think it’s a huge problem in our society. I’m sure a good portion of the women in this class have experienced inappropriate comments that can be uncomfortable and even threatening. I think that some men just aren’t able to see this from a woman’s point of view. Most men would love that kind of attention from a women as Rhode mentions in this article but how much of a threat do they see women as? I just don’t think it’s the same when it’s the other way around.
I like the points that were raised in this article. I feel that this is stuff that probably most of us, especially in this field, know by now but its stuff that a lot of people don’t realize.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
The Second Shift
Alright, I guess I'd like to know that we were not always dealing with the most extreme cases in these readings. In Sociology of the Family there was always a discussion about the "second shift" for women, and I just feel like all we hear as young sociologists is how extreme cases work where women get the shaft and men do nothing.
Now, I'm not one to say that women aren't getting the shaft in most cases with the second shift, I am just saying I'd love to see a "normal" case presented. Some may think that the case was normal, but I am not so sure that it is. In the study done in this section, the fathers ended up getting more sleep than the wives/mothers did. They also watched more television. But here is my question, what if the wife didn't like television? I'm just saying. Trying to be the devil's advocate. I thought one of the interesting quotes from this section came from page 572 when they say "One reason women take a deeper interest than men in the problems of juggling work with family life is that even when husbands happily shared the hours of work, their wives felt more responsible for home and children". This is finally something relevant! Simply because it is real. The real deal is that there is a sense of responsibility that women have for home and children that men do not.
I also saw some interesting information on the same page about why it is that men seem to have more control over when they make their contributions. Men are usually able to tell the secretary to hold his calls, but a working mother would probably be the secretary. Meaning that the working mother would not have much control on what she is able to do as far as holding calls goes.
I know this post is really late, but hey, I got it up here. This is my opinion on the matter. We have got to get out of this idea of thinking for other situations and get into this idea of thinking for our situation. Fella's, help your lady out with things at home. I ask the question here, now, we always talk about situations that the wife has to deal with (laundry, dishes...), but we never talk about the outside house work that has to be done. I know that there are tests telling about much more relaxed the guys position is, and I am not really denying that, but we never look at the full spectrum I feel.
Article was sweet, another talk about the second shift. Perspective was different, but I think that the friction between couples starts far before the "second shift" hits. Maybe if people stopped marrying because of sex and started taking the time to get to know the individual we wouldn't have so many people unhappy with their relationships and wanting out or dreading their position. I'm just saying.
Alright, I'm off my soap box. Sorry this was SUPER late, but better late than never.
Goldin, From the Valley to the Summit - for J. Barone
I think that one of the biggest reasons women and men have such hard types working in each others gender based work fields is the stereo type as Kirlin mentions above. Men need to be masculine, strong, and provide while women need to be pretty, quiet and on the sidelines this is the American trend. A more important question that we should be asking is why did this trend start? In some Native American cultures basket weaving and clothes making were considered men’s work while women’s work consisted of keeping house and by keeping house I mean building it and maintaining it. It is strange that in these two very different cultures the gender roles would also vary so much.
If men are supposedly stronger why wouldn’t they be responsible for building houses? It seems although women have been graduating from college at higher rates than men and still earning less than men that it is just a part of our culture. If our culture calls for women to help others and be less superior then males perhaps they are doomed to stay their since graduating at higher rates hasn’t helped. Could this trend be irreversible will women always just be left striving to be equivalent to males. Even if we look way back to cavemen times perhaps this is where the trend started; women aren’t strong enough to hunt so they will stay at home while men go and provide. If gender inequality has existed for thousands of years is it able to be broken down?
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
"A Speed Up In The Family" by Hochschild
Hochschild paints vivid examples of gender inequality within the household in The Second Shift: Working Parents and the Revolution at Home. Hochschild outlines inequalities between the amount of work mothers do at home compared to that of fathers, and states that with more women moving into the economy, families have been hit by a “speed up” in work and family life; the speed up being that there “is no more time in the day than there was when wives stayed home, but there is twice as much to get done” (pg 572). Women are the ones who then typically absorb and deal with this speed up by working a “second shift”, which happens when women who have a salaried job outside the home (shift one) return home only to be confronted with their second shift of work (cooking food, doing laundry, caring for children, cleaning, etc.) all within their household.
Hochschild also found that working women averaged three hours a day of housework compared to their working male counterpart, who only spend "17 minutes on housework" (pg. 569). Working women also spent more time with their children, watched less television, and slept less then their working husbands. One of the major statistics Hochschild stresses as a summary of the inequality is that over a typical year, “women worked an extra month of twenty-four hour days a year” when compared to their husbands (pg 570).
When Hochschild tried to explain why women were the ones to feel the brunt of this “speed up”in the family, it seemed that gender role expectations and stereotypes were the base of her reasoning. Women felt more responsible for the homestead and children, women were in charge of gender specific tasks like cooking and childcare which took up more time then the male specific tasks like oil changes and general repairs, men overruled their wives in deciding who did what in terms of childcare (men doing more leisure and fun things with children, while women did more “maintenance” and routine tasks with the children) and so on. All of these tasks seemed to have specific rules attached to them as to which sex is allowed to do each aspect of home life. These rules are gender roles and gender stereotypes that seem embedded in both men and women, husbands and wives, which create the traditional gender ideology typically supported by an unequal, patriarchal society.
This Hochschild article reminded me of something I read about in my HEV 411 class (Family Relations) called “The Mommy Wars”, which is the “war” between the stay at home mothers who get treated as outsiders and sometimes deemed “lazy” and the paid working mothers who are looked at as not being 100% involved in their children’s lives. I remember the article mentioned how there is no “win – win” situation for mothers in today’s society, as both sides are stigmatized.
I believe that Hochschild presents good arguments for gender inequality in the household. I would have liked to see a more solid and clear conclusion when it came to the impact of this on children and the couple themselves, as this part remained a little vague, but was touched on. I would also like to see statistics on relationships with homosexual partners to see if there is a difference in gender roles/second shifts, etc between these groups when competing genders are eliminated from the equation.
Detours on the Road to Equality: Women, Work, and Higher Education
Jerry A. Jacobs states in his article that the incline of women entering male dominated work has been slowing, and seems to have come to a halt in 1990’s. Although this is happening, women are not giving up. They are instead attending secondary higher education institutes; in addition, the author states that women may be attending these institutes at an astronomical number because of the roadblocks they are encountering when attempting to enter male dominated professions. According to the article, in 1998 56% of bachelor’s degrees that were earned were by women. It is also believed that in the near future, the ratio of college degrees earned by women to men will be 60:40. If this is the case why are women experiencing this and what may be contributing to it?
There is a major trend in segregation between male dominated work fields and women dominated work fields. To show, women dominate the fields of secretaries, administrative assistants, child care workers, or registered nurses. Males tend to dominate in construction trades such as carpenters, plumbers, electricians, mechanics and repair, and engineers. This is interesting because I feel that these trades have been taught to males and females from an early age in life through gender stereotypes. Even more interesting, among high-status professions there seems to be an increase in the rate of women. The areas of medicine, law, and management are considered to be among the high-status professions. Although these professions are occupied by both men and women, women are still working in areas of these fields that are associated with the family. Moreover, women are being paid less even when they have the same work time, qualifications, and experience as men.
Why could a trend such as this career segregation occurring? The article discusses items such as a trend of growing up with gender stereotypes, burnout, and limits to parenting. These items seem obvious, but why is it then that women are entering male dominated fields and men are not interested in entering female dominate fields? The answer is masculinity. I believe that women are not necessarily afraid to be viewed as having masculine characteristics because it comes with power, but men do not want to demote their masculinity. I think this is bogus because men and women bring different traits and should want to contribute those to different areas of work.
Near the end of Jacob’s article, he goes in to great detail regarding the decline of integration in the work field. When examining the “index of dissimilarity,” there is a drastic decline between the years of 1970 and 2000. These can be explained by booms and depressions of the economy, the feminist movement, affirmative action, and other elements and changes in the functioning of society. Unfortunately with the way that the economy and society are going nowadays, the article predicted that by the year 2020 there will not be much change; furthermore, the conditions will resemble the current patterns. This is truly a shame because women should have just as much opportunity in life as men do; especially in a “free” America.
The Second Shift: Working Parents and the Revolution at Home
The information retrieved for this reading was done by interviewing women with different job backgrounds, from lawyers and corporate executives to day care workers and seamstresses. These women, and surprisingly their husbands both felt differently in regards to some issues. For example: how right is it for a mom with young kids to work fulltime, or how many responsibilities a husband should have at home. However, both agreed that it is hard for them to work fulltime jobs and raise their young kids.
Today in the labor force, 2/3 of women are now working. With that statistic Szalais asks how much more time are Dads contributing at home? The study shows that men only spend 17 minutes a day to help with housework, versus women who spend an average of 3 hours. Sadly, when it comes to spending time with their kids, women spend 50 minutes a day, versus men who spend only 12 minutes (P. 569-70). I think this statistic is very sad. I question how much this affects kids growing up.
Szalais’ study portrayed a deeper set of emotional issues behind gender strategy coping with home, work, marriage, and life. The wage gap between men and women leads to a gap between work, home, and leisure time as well. We are all aware that “second shift” is a real thing that occurs with women in our society- Working fulltime and coming home to keep up with cleaning, laundry, cooking, and tending to the kids schedule. I feel that because of our history and society’s idea that juggling everything is apart of being a woman in a family, the second shift will continue to exist. Women in the study said that they feel as if they are always on duty- on duty at work and then arriving at home and on duty there too. The article leads me to the idea that women in our society are just plane overwhelmed. Also, many of the women believed that the speed up with more responsibility and the speedup lead to strain because they often have to do two things at once. Because of this, problems arise between husbands and wives in the marital and individual realm. The author believes that this an effect from their childhoods and how they were raised, and goes on to state that when couples struggle, it is not really because of who does what, but more so over who is giving and receiving gratitude (p. 578).During the authors interviews of husbands and wives in their home, began to see that these couples develop family myths. What are these family myths? Hochschild describes it as “versions of reality that obscure core truth in order to manage a family tension” (P. 579). Hochschild found by the end of the interviews that more people spoke about ending relationships for other reasons than the husband not contributing to household work and commitment to time with kids. I think that was a surprise because the entire reading seemed to be more about the gender differences in roles and the stresses of women and their role in society between labor and family. To me it seemed that the author threw in that statement at the end as if to say “oh by the way.” which makes no sense to me because of everything else she focused on. I do question some of her findings because she never described the setting whether it was rural or in the suburbs, or what the age of these women were. I wish she would have gotten some statistic on the reasons why wives divorce.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Jobless Poverty: A new Form of Social Dislocation in the Inner-City Ghetto- Wilson
In this article, Wilson is discussing jobless poverty and how it is effecting different racial groups. When Wilson is talking about "joblessness" he includes both official unemployment and non-labor-force participation. With these statistics he provides for us, it shows that people who live in the high neighborhood joblessness are more devastating than those of high neighborhood poverty. Wilson feels that this is because all of the problems in the inner-city ghetto neighborhoods such as crime, welfare, and low levels of social organizations. The example he presented in this article was a child who grows up in a family with a steady breadwinner and in a neighborhoods in which most adults are employed the child will tend to develop some of the disciplined habits that are reflected in the behavior of those around him. This could be true to some point, however, I do not feel that this is always the case. Some people grow up in poverty and they use this experience to guide them into becoming successful. Many times they learn from this and try to succeed.
Another thing Wilson talks about the "statistical discrimination" employers make when they are hiring individuals. Statistic shows that employers make assumptions about the inner-city black workers in general and make a decision before they even have a chance to interview. It is sad that this still happens in society. Just because someone is from a certain area or they are a certain race it should not matter. What should matter is their skills, work experience, and if they fit the job criteria. Also, employers judge people on where they are from due to the lack of skills that the one area may have. This makes me suspicious because just because you may be raised in a lower-class area, does not mean that you are like everyone else. Several times this may be the class, but you should not judge someone before you get to meet them. Wilson shows good statistics that show all the "joblessness" out there and why this may be a major problem in our society today.