Below are the 10 most recent journal entries recorded in jillg325's LiveJournal:

Wednesday, April 26th, 2006
12:30 pm	Ore 563-569 Wildman and Davis discuss the problem of invisible privilege within society. Since privilege is most often perpetuated as a systemic, unnoticed structure, it is therefore a rampant problem that is hard to address. Since privilege is so ingrained into society and is so unnoticed, it is difficult to combat this large scale hidden structure of dominance. Language is a tool that is used to maintain such dominant privilege. For example, Wildman and Davis note the verbal division of people into categories such as race, gender, and sexuality, which can be further broken down into subcategories such as white, black, male, female, heterosexual, or gay and lesbian. These subcategories serve to perpetuate a power hierarchy among different categories of human beings. Wildman and Davis then go on to discuss the problem of the lingual term “racist,” and other “ism” terms that identify forms of discrimination. They note that one problem with the term racist or sexist is that it identifies discrimination as the act of a single individual, and does not account for the fact that racism is perpetuated by the collective actions of all members of the social system. Racism is perpetuated by all those who benefit from the results of such discrimination, by all those people that experience privilege but might not even know it, and help it remain in existence by their silence. Another problem of the uses of “isms” is that it “gives the illusion that all patterns of domination and subordination are the same and interchangeable” (565). This idea suggests that just because one person experiences a form of discrimination, they know what other people go through when they experience a different form of oppression. This belief is not true, and even dangerous to some extent, because if a person feels that they have be discriminated against in one particular area, they might not feel that they need to examine discrimination from other angles. I particularly enjoyed the example that Wildman and Davis discuss. They say that under this belief, a white woman may think that because she has experienced sexism in her life, she might not think that she needs to examine other power structures of society. Therefore, she might not ever notice the fact that she plays a role in the systemic perpetuation of racism in today’s society. Wildman and Davis argue that the only way to truly combat issues of privilege and power hierarchy is to make privilege visible. Only then can people fight the forms of oppression and privilege. The two women then go on to detail how they define privilege. To them, privilege is identified by the fact that those individuals who actually comprise a privileged group make up the definition of societal norms. All members of society are judged against the characteristics of the privileged. This reality is coupled with the fact that the members of the privileged elite are not forced to recognize the privilege they experience. They can ignore the systemic oppression of society because they benefit from it, or because they do not even realize it exists. (Comment on this)
Monday, April 17th, 2006
10:24 pm	Ore 484-496 Zola discusses the power of naming a particular minority group. Often, dominant groups have used language to degrade minority group individuals, or to “keep these people in their place.” Therefore, naming has both personal and political implications. Specifically, Zola focuses on the representations of people with chronic illnesses or disabilities. Particularly since people with disabilities often do not grow up within their own subculture, the power of naming people with disabilities is a major issue in the formation of a disability rights community. For one, Zola discusses how the name of a community has the power of connotation. For example, he notes that by calling people with disabilities sick, crazy, or ill, the validity of their words and actions is put into question. Their concerns can be dismissed as the rants of a crazy person. Secondly, Zola notes that a group’s name has the power of recognition and pervasive generalization. This means that a person with a disability might be considered most recognizable by his or her disability. Therefore, instead of using people first language such as the woman who is blind, that person might be referred to as “the blind woman.” The former name recognizes the person first as a human being, whereas the latter title places the disability of the woman as most important. Recognizing the disability of an individual first and foremost is dangerous for several reasons. It devalues the person with a disability as a human being, and it also reinforces the common belief that people with disabilities are incapable or stupid people. It makes the assumption that the disability of the person rules that individual’s life. Therefore, it is important to have a particular minority group name themselves, showing the world how they wish to be represented. Terms such as handicapped are not often used within the disability community to refer to people with disabilities because the term actually refers to the social institutions and practices that inhibit people with disabilities from fully participating in life. The term physically challenged is problematic because it assumes that there is something wrong with the person with a disability. Terms such as handicapper and differently-abled often refer to the productive lives people with disabilities can have with appropriate accommodations. One current trend that is common among minority groups is the reclaiming of hurtful names directed at a minority group from the dominant power. Just as the GLBTQ community has recently campaigned to reclaim the word “queer,” many disability rights activists are currently trying to reclaim the word “crip,” “gimp,” or even “freak.” I have read many books on the subject, including the one by Mairs mentioned in the essay, and many disability rights activists like using the word to take away is negative power. The word, taken back by the disability community, signifies the groups emerging power and system of pride and support. I previously mentioned the term “people first language.” This is a way of speaking that the disability community highly prefers at this current time. By referring to people with disabilities in a passive voice instead of an active one, people with disabilities are not solely or primarily defined by their disability. Zola also notes the fact that the disability community also has shown a form of cohesiveness by creating names and terms to explain their oppressors and the stigmas that people with disabilities face. For example, people with disabilities have started to refer to non disabled people as temporarily or momentarily able-bodied people (TABS or MABS). This reinforces the fact that anyone can become part of the disability community at any point in their lives. In addition, the disability community has started using the term “ableism” to denote the bias against people with disabilities perpetuated by able bodied people. I think Zola does an excellent job discussing the implications of naming in regards to the disabled community. He discusses all the points and issues that have been raised in my disability classes about the problems of using different terms to name people with disabilities. (3 Comments |Comment on this)
Wednesday, April 12th, 2006
12:25 pm	Ore 362-366 Reuss discusses the fact that social inequality often is that cause for the deaths of the poor, or other oppressed minorities. Diseases tend to hit the poor, the less educated, and people of color rather than individuals who are wealthy, well educated, and white. He also argues that the poor in the United States are not necessarily better off that the poor in other parts of the world. He says that the life expectancy of someone who is poor in the United States is very comparable to other people in third world countries. Part of the problem with the reduced life expectance of the boor in all areas of the world is poor health care. About 44 percent of poor people lack health insurance, and cannot afford proper health care. Also, the poor are often subjected to environmental and occupational hazards, such as communicable diseases, homicide, fire-arm related injuries, smoking, alcohol consumption, and lack of exercise. Reuss also discusses how income inequality and differences in status between people also can contribute to the lowered life expectancy of those who are in the lower and working classes, those who are minorities, and those who are less educated. He notes that high income inequality in a given area produces less social cohesion and more tension, in addition to the fact that the very rich often do not pay as much taxes to social institutions such as schools that the poor use more proportionally. As for difference in status, the health of the poor, less educated, and people of color can be negatively affected by things such as racial tension, stress over finding places to live, anxiety about job security, and so on. These “psycho-social” factors are said to be the “psychological costs of being lower in the social hierarchy,” and play a role in the decreased life expectancy rates of those with lower status (365). I think that Reuss raises some very valid points about the decreased life expectancy of those with lower social status, and I think that a lot of these factors do contribute to the health problems in some people who are poor, less educated, and of color. However, I think that Reuss disregards a major point when he discusses the standards of living of the poor in the United States compared to the standard of living of people in third world countries. He says that “poor people in rich countries like the United States are not rich compared to ordinary people in poor countries… It takes more income in the United States than in poor countries to reach the same life expectancy” (363). While this is most likely true, I think it is still important to compare the poor in the United States to the poor in third world countries. Reuss compares the poor of the United States to the average families of third world countries, or the middle class, and states that one is not really better off than the other. With this observation, he claims that the “worse off in the United States are not well off by world standards” (363). This is true when you compare the poor in the United States to the middle class of third world countries, but it is certainly not a reality when you compare the poor classes of both places. The poor in America are much better off than the poor in third world countries. I think it is an important distinction to be made. (2 Comments |Comment on this)
Tuesday, April 4th, 2006
11:34 pm	Ore: Williams 350-361 I found Williams discussion of the sex segregation in the labor force to be quite interesting. I do not think it is surprising that men typically do not face heavy restrictions to entering a stereotypically feminine workforce. In traditionally feminine roles, men are considered to be underrepresented, and people often desire to integrate a male perspective and voice into female professions. Many people prefer to hire men into a position that is traditionally feminine, in order to have more gender diversity within the particular field. Williams discusses that this preferential treatment often results in something called the glass escalator. Often, people “track” men into positions of higher authority within traditionally feminine fields. Placing men into positions of power resonates with the frequent patriarchal construction of society that places emphasis upon male authority and domination. These authoritative positions are basically considered more legitimate for men to possess. This is an interesting concept, since it can prevent men from keeping positions that they really enjoy. For example, Williams discussed the potential situation of male elementary school teacher or librarian. Even if the individual is competent at his job and wishes to stay there, people can often fast track males into administration jobs. The person has to try very hard to be able to keep a position of lower authority, a position with which they are perfectly happy. This concept of the glass escalator is quite different from the glass ceiling that women can face in male dominated professions. The glass ceiling refers to the invisible discrimination that women can face when trying to secure promotions and positions of higher authority. This glass ceiling is often reinforced by sexist perspectives of men in the workforce, particularly by those men who have the power to promote employees. One of the issues that Williams discussed was the stigma that society attaches to men in traditionally female occupations. Often, men in traditionally female roles are considered to have taken a step down in their personal status. Men can be stigmatized as weak and effeminate when they decide to join a feminine status. This is an interesting topic for me, since I have discussed this idea many times in my disability studies classes. We have talked about the fact that when a person attaches him or herself to a minority group, they often take a step down in status because the stigma of that minority group is now attached to them. The individual does not actually have to be a member of that minority group to be stigmatized, but simply be associated with the group in question. This concept applies to the fact when a person of a dominant majority status wishes to become an ally to an oppressed minority group. For example, if a temporarily-able bodied person (non-disabled person) wishes to fight for the issue of disability civil rights, he or she has to be willing to deal with the stereotypes, stigma, and prejudice that disabled individuals face on a daily basis. Once an individual aligns him or herself with a particular group, that person has to be willing to take the consequences of such an action. This complicates the role of an ally, because the stigma attached to the ally makes it that much harder to align oneself with a minority group in need. (3 Comments |Comment on this)
Wednesday, March 22nd, 2006
4:14 am	George 1-76 George discussed her account of her gender based research with Keralite Christian immigrants. She noted the unusual trend of women nurses immigrating to the United Stated before their husbands and children. These women often became the primary breadwinners in the family, and then sponsored their families’ later immigration to the States. Husbands of Keralite nurses in the United States often experienced a demotion from their previous statuses held in their native land, often earning less money than their wives and having to engage in stereotypically feminine tasks such as cooking, cleaning, and child-rearing. This economically instigated situation is quite a large role reversal between men and women from the roles they encountered in India. Consequently, Keralite men in the United States tend to assert their dominance over women in social and religious contexts in an attempt to retain/regain a sense of personal power and prestige. The consequent economic, domestic, and cultural interactions between Keralite men and women result in an identity crisis between the two sexes over gender issues in the home and in the community. The aforementioned facts constitute a brief overview of the gender matters that George studied amongst present-day Keralite Christian immigrants. Her analysis on the subject was very informative; however, I was particularly intrigued by the methodology of her research, as her comments tie in heavily with a class I am currently taking centered upon the ethics in human research. George discussed how she became personally involved with the church-based community of the population she was studying, particularly since she herself was of the same ethnicity and religion as the St. George Orthodox Church community. She maintained that, although she was at first apprehensive at the potential repercussions of such an intimate relationship with the people she was supposed to be studying, the closeness between her and the members of St. George greatly enhanced her research. The personal interactions with her research subjects engendered a sense of trust between George and the community, in addition to providing George with great opportunities for unusual and privileged moments of observation of the church’s exclusively male interactions. The reason why I find this opinion to be so fascinating is because it is in direct opposition to traditional methods of social science research, especially in the field of psychology. In the past, great emphasis has been placed upon maintaining an objective distance from one’s research and research subjects, holding that refraining from developing or placing personal biases on the research will produce better academic results. However, in light of recently reading George’s opinion on the matter, in addition to Michelle Fine’s writings on qualitative activist research, I personally find much more validity to George’s call for a more interactive means of conducting research. I agree with her assertion that the more a researcher puts into the project, the more he or she will get out of his or her work. In order to be able to contemplate the full range of facts and sides to a particular issue, one must be willing to dive headfirst into the subject at hand. A certain level of familiarity and trust must be developed in order to be able to garner real results (although any resulting personal biases must be recognized and formally recorded). George is in a unique situation regarding her research, as she notes that her identity leads to a certain fluidity between her status as a researcher and her status as a member of the community that she is researching. Although, as indicated before, proponents of a more traditional approach to research might label her work as biased and somewhat invalid, I reiterate in saying that I find that her level of intimacy with the topic at hand to be a very fruitful relationship. I would rather become informed on a particular subject by a person who cares about the people he or she is researching, and has a certain amount of close interaction with the community being studied. (4 Comments |Comment on this)
Wednesday, March 8th, 2006
2:10 pm	Ore (519-532) Goldstein (226-274) Connell (167-218) Boswell and Spade discuss the characteristics of rape culture, which is defined as the “set of values and beliefs that provide an environment conducive to rape” (Ore 519). Specifically, Boswell and Spade researched the potentiality of college fraternities to be conducive to furthering a negative rape culture. They determined that some fraternities are considered low-risk houses, places in which women could feel relatively safe at any parties or social functions held there. These low-risk houses often held parties that had an equal amount of men and women, had a friendly, interactive atmosphere, and encouraged conversation to some extent. The houses played music and had dancing, but generally the music was at a level at which conversation could still be heard, and the atmosphere was more couple or friend oriented than completely sexually charged. Parties at high-risk houses often involved an imbalanced number of women and men, extremely loud music, limited conversation and friendliness, a highly sexualized atmosphere, and a high amount of alcohol consumption. These high-risk houses perpetuated rape culture within their dynamics through the setup of their parties and often through the attitudes of the people present at such social scenes. Some of the prevalent attitudes in high-risk fraternities were the belief in a double standard between men and women about sexual behavior. For example, many people in high-risk fraternities considered sexually active men “studs” and congratulated these individuals for their sexual encounters, while simultaneously regarding sexually active women as bad girls or “sluts.” Another rape myth is the belief that women really want to have sex even if they deny it or say no to sex. These ideas perpetuate the belief that women want to have sex no matter what they say, a man just has to be forceful in order to get what he wants. In addition, I thought it Boswell and Spade’s discussion of faceless victims to be particularly interesting. They assert that men are more likely to exploit, use, or negatively tease women that they do not know rather than hurt women they respect or know. Men noted that they would rather “hook up” with women they hardly knew or didn’t know at all, whereas women noted that they would rather hook up with someone that they liked or with whom they could potentially have a relationship. To me, this highlights the stress that society puts on women to be relationship-oriented, and the stress society places on men to be “ladies men” or sexually aggressive. This desire men have to hook up with women they barely know also engenders rape culture since it sexualizes strange women. This is directly correlated to attacking and potentially raping women that men see and desire from afar. I also thought that the “groupthink” mentality that high-risk fraternities often have was particularly salient to the idea of rape culture. It is easier to victimize women, or any specific group for that matter, when the aggressors have a support system around them backing up their negative behavior. This collective fraternity group can feel justified in their actions that hurt women if “everyone else around them is doing it.” This is especially exemplified in Boswell and Spade’s discussion of the “walk of shame,” when a group of men stand together to shout insults at a young woman for walking back to her home the morning after a party and potential sexual encounter. Having a group backing up your actions lets people engage in behaviors that they might not otherwise have committed alone. As a woman on a college campus, I have heard much about the “walk of shame.” I know several friends who have internalized this occurrence, and reference the walk of shame without even being prompted by males. A few girlfriends of mine make jokes about walking anywhere early in the morning on the weekends, saying how people will think that they’re making the walk of shame, even if they’re really not. I think this is a great example of how stereotypes and criticisms of a particular group can become internalized within that minority. (1 Comment |Comment on this)
Wednesday, February 22nd, 2006
12:53 pm	Ore: Kimmel (133-150) Kimmel discusses the American ideal of masculinity. First, he notes that the concept of masculinity is an ever-changing, socially constructed notion that is rooted in its historical time. This is contradictory to the commonly held belief that masculinity is a transcendent ideal that is fixed for all time. Kimmel then notes the three different ideals of masculinity that have emerged throughout American history. First, during the late 18th and 19th centuries, the models of the Genteel Patriarch and the Heroic Artisan were idealized. The Genteel Patriarch gains his identity from land ownership, and the Heroic Artisan derives his identity from physical strength and independence, but both were very tied to family matters. Respectively, these models represented traditional aristocracy and democratic community, and the coexistence of these two showed that these two ideals could exist side by side. In the 1830s, a new model of manhood emerged known as the Market place Man. This concept exists today, and this kind of man derives his identity from his business success and accumulation of various goods to prove his status. This man is often absent from his family, and engages is intense competition with other men. The contemporary man experiences several demands on his masculinity. Today’s definition of masculinity expects men to reject all that is feminine to prove their masculinity, to gain a position of respect and all the trappings associated with such a position, to be a calm, stable, emotionless figure, and to further the image of the aggressive, daring male. A man should be able to conform to all these demands in order to be labeled a “real man.” I was particularly interested in Kimmel’s discussion of man’s attempt to distance himself from all that is feminine. He discusses some of Freud’s theories, noting that men want to distance themselves from their mothers in order to assert their manhood. This results in the idea that “masculine identity is born in the renunciation of the feminine, not in the direct affirmation of the masculine, which leaves masculine gender identity tenuous and fragile” (138). Consequently, men are always trying to continuously assert their masculinity to prove that they are indeed men. Kimmel then discusses that this sort of identification (defining what you are by understanding what you are not) is different from the identification women undergo. He states that women do not feel the need to “prove their womanhood” in order to be considered feminine. He states that women feel gender identity crises on the basis of frustration and exclusion, rather than “from questioning that they are not feminine enough” (138). I do now know if I completely believe in this theory. Whereas I do think that women derive a certain identity from their attachment to their minority status in a patriarchal society, I think that women’s femininity is often challenged, and is a space of negotiation. Women are also constantly being judged by their peers, by other women, and are set to excruciatingly high ideal standards of feminine behavior. Women often put on faces or act a certain way to fit the concept of femininity created by today’s society. Kimmel also discusses how men’s constant attempt to prove their manhood is negotiated within a homosocial atmosphere. He notes that men are always trying to prove themselves to other men, afraid that they will not hold up to masculine ideals. They would then be unmasked as not masculine, and be humiliated within their peer group. This fear of being humiliated causes men to perpetuate homophobia and sexism in their everyday behavior. Kimmel suggests that men perform exaggerated masculine behaviors in order to assert their masculinity, and this often comes in the form of homophobia, racism, sexism, etc, as men are trying to define themselves by excluding members of the other from the male gender. For example, men are said to be afraid of other men, because men can humiliate other men by saying that a certain man is not masculine. These concepts are interesting because they denote how even men can feel powerless in a patriarchal society. Our present culture gives preference to men as a whole, but individual men sometimes do not feel the benefits of this power. This causes exaggerated “masculine” behaviors that often result in the oppression of the other. To me, this implies that the practices of our society need to be scrutinized closely, and be revamped in order to be of a more inclusive nature. Perhaps a more encompassing power structure and a less idealized image of man would alleviate some of the tensions men have to prove that they are indeed masculine. (8 Comments |Comment on this)
Wednesday, February 15th, 2006
2:03 pm	Zia (515-518), Connell (1-22), Goldstein (Intro) Zia discusses how racism, hate crimes, and pornography intersect, causing violent crimes against women of color. She notes several instances of “ehtnorape” and violence against Asian American women. However, Zia notes that many of these unfortunate crimes against women of color are not investigated as hate crimes. This is because of the dual lack of interest of people in positions of authority (i.e. police and prosecutors) and the lack of civil rights awareness by minority communities. This disinterest in the pursuance of hate crimes against women of color leads to the effective silencing of those of the female gender. Zia concludes by noting that investigations into hate crimes against women of color are needed in order to deter such violence. This is a difficult situation to fix, but necessary to help women of color gain human rights and attain visibility within society. Connell maintains that the study of gender is important to comprehend the total workings of society. She begins by using a case study of the life of fifteen-year-old Delia Prince to comprehend how gender relations is negotiated within individual lives. Connell notes that “gender relations are constituted by practices such as those Delia Prince and her family are engaged in. At the same time their practice…must respond to, and is constrained by, the circumstances which those structures constitute” (17). It is a very cyclical system, and the practices of individuals simultaneously shape and are shaped by the ideology of gender relations. For example, the division of labor in Delia’s family is indicative of a larger social trend. Delia’s mother maintains a position of caretaker in the family, and is a full-time homemaker. Delia’s father, conversely, maintains the role of breadwinner and head of the household. Whereas Delia’s mother does slightly diverge from gender norms by taking on a part-time job, her employment is that of traditional women’s work. This case study relates to the world at large. Connell notes social trends in which women are placed in a position of inferiority under men. For example, women typically earn less then men do, they have less access to education and training, they hold fewer positions of authority in the workplace, and a lower percentage of women work in paid situations in general. The dichotomy between the employment and earning potentials of men and women often results in violence and prejudice against women. For example, the lower pay women often receive inhibits them from finding their own home and income in order to distance them form an abusive relationship. Goldstein discusses the power and importance of humor to a particular population. She notes that in the Rio shantytown’s of Brazil, socio-economically lower class citizens often use humor as a political commentary on the ruling class. Humor can be used as a means of insubordination, as a way to revolt daily against the oppressive system in which one resides. Humor is also a way in which to deal with the everyday suffering experienced by people living in Rio shantytowns. (1 Comment |Comment on this)
Monday, January 30th, 2006
9:24 am	Ore: Brodkin 57-75, Reskin 389-401, Lipsitz 402-412; Blog 2 Brodkin discussed the fact that, in the early twentieth century, the Nordic or Anglo-Saxon race was considered superior to those individuals who came from southern or eastern Europe. She posits that American anti-Semitism was a part of this discrimination against southern and eastern Europeans, and this discrimination was extended to other minority groups such as Asian immigrants, African Americans, Native Americans, and Mexicans. As a result of a massive influx of southern and eastern European immigrants in the late nineteenth century, a large anti-immigrant and anti-working class sentiment spread throughout America. Society was divided along segregationist lines, and the predominant mode of thinking at the time believed that the upper class should and did consist of the superior Nordic race, and that the lower class was made up of those individuals from lower races. Many devices were enacted to maintain this way of life. The idea of eugenics became popular, which entailed the breeding of the superior Anglo-Saxon race so that Nordic peoples could maintain their pure, “superior” race. Intelligence and speech tests were devised in order to assert the mental inferiority of the so-called lower races. These discriminatory practices are not unlike the methods used to prevent African Americans from practicing their civil rights, such as poll taxes, grandfather clauses, and literacy tests enacted to prevent African Americans from voting. Brodkin’s discussion of the discriminatory practices towards non-whites relates to Lipsitz’s discourse on the unmarked nature of white Americans. Since whiteness is unmarked, Lipsitz argues that all other races are defined against it. Whiteness is integrated into everyday culture, and its privilege does not have to be acknowledged. This position is reflective of the implied “white privilege” inherent in American society that we have discussed in class. By remaining the standard against which “the Other” is defined, white Americans maintain a position of superiority and privilege over other races. Brodkin and Lipsitz then go on to discuss the “whitening” of European ethnic groups, including Jews. Although previously subjected to extensive discrimination, the beginning of the post World War II era saw the opportunity upward class mobility for southern and eastern Europeans. Lipsitz notes that, at this time, “ethnic differences among whites became a less important dividing line in American culture, while race became more important” (Ore 405). The formation of a single “white” identity, instead of one that was divided upon ethnic lines, created great opportunities for the advancement of southern and eastern Europeans. For example, both Brodkin and Lipsitz discuss the 1944 Serviceman’s readjustment Act, or the GI Bill of Rights. This act, effectively a “massive affirmative action program,” gave benefits to returning war veterans, benefits that included preferential hiring, low interest loans, and tuition and living expenses (Ore 64). Brodkin calls the GI Bill an affirmative action program because, thought it claimed to help all veterans, in reality the benefits of this bill were mainly extended to southern and eastern European males. Women and African Americans in particular were excluded from obtaining the privileges due to them. In addition to the GI bill, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) perpetuated segregationist practices that furthered the “whitening” of southern and eastern European ethnic groups, while simultaneously harming non-whit races, especially African Americans. The FHA would shut African Americans out of the postwar suburban boom by only allowing whites to occupy suburban homes. Since the category of white was now extended to southern and eastern Europeans, these individuals were in a position to experience upward social movement with their newfound access to better homes. In addition, the FHA, through urban renewal programs, eliminated much of the housing available for non-whites with the construction and demolition of urban areas. Also, through the practice of redlining, the FHA prevented African Americans from bettering their homes by labeling their neighborhoods as bad investment areas, thus reducing the chance that banks would loan money to African Americans in neighborhoods deemed undesirable by the FHA. Reskin discusses the effects of current affirmative action policies. Reskin notes that one widespread argument against affirmative action is that it promotes reverse discrimination. She maintains that, in reality, this is simply not true, and posits that relatively few whites have experienced or even complained of reverse discrimination, especially compared to instances of conventional discrimination. Another argument against affirmative action polices is that it inhibits productivity. This, again, is an unsound position according to Reskin. She writes that it is unlawful for companies to hire unqualified workers to fill minority quotas, and so workers hired under affirmative action programs are just as productive as other workers. In addition, many companies find that implementing affirmative action programs betters their hiring processes and broadens their market. Besides the benefits to individual companies, Reskin notes that society as a whole benefits because the productive capacity of minorities is now being used to its potential. In conclusion, Reskin claims that the use of affirmative action policies, though seemingly oppositional to traditionally American-based systems, is actually in accordance with the ideas of most United States citizens. Most American find fault with quota systems, but encourage activities most commonly used in affirmative action programs, such as broadening the applicant pool for jobs. (1 Comment |Comment on this)
Monday, January 23rd, 2006
2:20 am	Extra Credit, Dilek Cindoglu Dilek Cindoglu’s talk, entitled “The Family in Turkey: The Battlefield of the Modern and Traditional,” discussed the idea that family is a gendered institution that is socially constructed. Cindoglu noted that female oppression in Turkey is in part perpetuated due to the interaction of modern society with the state’s traditional gendered ideology. The media, and increased tourism and migration in Turkey, has helped create a dichotomy between modern and tradition ideas on what is a woman’s place in society. As a result, the position of many women in Turkey is shaky, and many females are subjected to the following: rape, marital rape, forced marriage, femicide, honor killings, passion crimes, virginity testing and reconstruction, female circumcision, and more. Whereas radical feminists argue that this female oppression arises from a fear of female sexuality, and cultural feminists argue that women’s bodies are controlled because they are considered the property of men and the community, Cindoglu asserts a global context argument. She considers women to be the carriers of the social and cultural. As cultural tensions heighten due to the increased threats to traditional culture at the hands of globalization, women bear the brunt of this battlefield between the traditional and the modern. For example, Cindoglu notes that, in Turkey, men are traditionally the breadwinners whereas women are considered homemakers. With the escalation of globalization and the consequent rising economic uncertainty in Turkey, men are not always the sole breadwinners in the family anymore. This upset of the traditional family causes a crisis in masculinity, which in turn spurs female oppression and passion crimes against women. This situation is in opposition to what the modernization theory would expect. With the rise of female workers and the integration of modern theory into traditional society, one might assume that women are gaining more civil rights and a better position in society. However, Cindoglu asserts that until women experience better education, labor force participation, political participation, birth control availability, and health care, they will not be able to enjoy a better position in their culture. Cindoglu, however, does acknowledge the reality of some resistance to this sad state of affairs by the efforts of international bodies. Cindoglu’s presentation relates to this class in multiple ways. For one, her discussion of female oppression highlights the ways in which a patriarchal society defines women, and relegates them to a position of inferiority. In addition, the creation of a hierarchy between the men and women leads to the oppression of the supposedly substandard, “gentler” sex. And finally, Cindoglu’s discussion of the ways in which to break from this system of female oppression is congruent with the ideas of the Civil Rights movement we are now examining in the Eyes on the Prize documentaries. In order to gain a better position for those who are oppressed, it is important to fight for equal rights and opportunities such as the ones Cindoglu highlighted above. (1 Comment |Comment on this)