Inequality in the United States (IVUS 51-69)

Class, race and gender. Some things we can't choose, others we can move around in. Our race, class, and gender are things we are born into, but with class, we have mobility in. I understand these things can determine some of the opportunities and impact our relationship with violence. When I read this chapter in Inequality & Violence in the United States: Casualities of Capitalism, I questioned where I fit in on some of the things mentioned and where the rest of the community I am surronded by fit in. On page 53, there is a table that shows the class composition. According to this table, I am at the bottom, falling into the underclass while my family fits into the working category. I feel ike compared to the community of WSU, my family comes up a little short. I also tried fitting myself into the other tables that deal with median incomes by race/ethnicity. The only ethnicities/races that were included were white, black, and Hispanic. I couldn't find where I would fit in.

I don't think I really like these tables.

Categorizing people allows a lot of hierarchy and people to feel inferior. I think it gives a way for people to have power and more privilege which can cause conflict between the categories. I think that the tables also leave some people out, more specifically the tables that categorized based on race/ethnicity. So where do I fit?

How the World Sees America & How America Sees the World (SAE 98-99)

Are we, as Americans, really that self-centered? That was the first question that popped up in my mind as I was reading the articles from the State of the American Empire book.

"Americans are so convinced of the superiority of their own system they have
difficulty appreciating the virtues of others." (Burman 98)

Just the other day, as I was eating dinner at the dining center near my dorm, I witnessed firsthand the arrogance of those who think we are the center of the world. It shocked me as I sat and listened to the ongoing conversation. One of the males kept insisting that America is way better than the country that the student was from. I just couldn't help feeling disgust toward how this person was imposing their ideas on this person. I guess that this person was falling into what Burman explained -- "The danger arises when this self-admiration extends to a desire to impose the American social model on to other cultures." (98)

Although some people may be that way, the way Burman writes makes me feel like he is bashing the United States of America. He uses pretty harsh words in my opinion when he describes and makes comparisons of the United States of America.

"At its worst, Americans see alternative cultures as embodiments of evil, and
combating them as a duty to civilize a world corrupted by false gods. As a
result, the USA often lacks the respect and restraint necessary when dealing
with sovereign states, and instead a mirror image of radical, proselytizing
Islam." (Burman 99)

I feel that he makes the United States of America seem obsessed with making everyone Christian and that those who don't conform to how we do things are seen as "evil". I don't think America is that bad. I mean, there are flaws to every society, so I'm just wondering if this author publishes bias in this text. Is it just me or is there a lot of negativity in this text?

"Patriarchy, the System: An It, Not a He, a Them, or an Us" (WL 28-37)

I've never come across the word "patriarchy" before so I found this article in Women's Lives quite interesting. The terms male, control, and power seemed to be repeated throughout the whole article, which I found interesting. Patriarchy seems to be an institution that sets expectations for everyone -- male and female. Men are the ones who were created in the image of God and dominate culture while women are not as superior and stay home to do the housework. We don't have to follow these expectations, but we do anyway. I never knew it before, but we live in a patriarchal culture that creates inequalities between men and women. The standards placed upon us has put us all in thought a thought process that keeps us in the box. Now that I've learned about patriarchy, I can, like the article says, decide if I want to participate in it or not. I sometimes wonder why some people choose to participate. I guess they may be scared into it because patriarchy has been the way things are for so long, but I think change could be good for everyone. I guess we never know until we try.

"The Social Construction of Gender" (WL 24-27)

In the article "The Social Construction of Gender" (WL 24-47), Lorber presents to us the notion that gender is so intertwined in everything we do that we sometimes don't even catch ourselves in the act of "gendering". Gendering is deeply-rooted into our lives, not through genes, but through social interaction. Yes, I admit that I participate in gendering, whether I'm aware of it at the time or not. The occasional baby shower shopping or even birthday gift shopping are just a few of the examples of my personal experiences with gendering. Usually, I'd be on the look out for items that have certain gender qualities to it (like blue for boys, pink for girls).

I kind of can't help that I'm so prone to gendering. I think it's become sort of automatic for most people. It's what we've been taught and what we've grown up with. I know many have had the experience of being told that they are not acting like their gender. For me, my mom would often tell me "That's unladylike, stop it" when I was doing something she perceived as "tomboyish". In the Lorber piece, she refers to gender as a "social instution". This social institution is quite oppressive in itself. Lorber writes:

"In social interaction throughout their lives, individuals learn what is expected, see what is expected, act and react in expected ways, and thus simultaneously construct and maintain the gender order." (pg. 25)

What is the keyword throughout this particular idea? Expected. Expectations can somewhat be overbearing. As a woman, some classic expectations include acting feminine, dressing in feminine ways, and being submissive counterparts to men. I can feel the expectations bearing down on me. There's pressure coming not only from society, but there's pressure coming from myself too. Not being able to keep to the expectations somewhat makes me feel awkward at times, like I'm doing something wrong. After reading that particular quote from Lorber's piece, I thought this poem I read in English class:

Barbie Doll
by Marge Piercy

This girlchild was born as usual
and presented dolls that did pee-pee
and miniature GE stoves and irons
and wee lipsticks the color of cherry candy.
Then in the magic of puberty, a classmate said:
You have a great big nose and fat legs.

She was healthy, tested intelligent,
possessed strong arms and back,
abundant sexual drive and manual dexterity.
She went to and fro apologizing.
Everyone saw a fat nose on thick legs.

She was advised to play coy,
exhorted to come on hearty,
exercise, diet, smile and wheedle.
Her good nature wore out
like a fan belt.
So she cut off her nose and her legs
and offered them up.

In the casket displayed on satin she lay
with the undertaker's cosmetics painted on,
a turned-up putty nose,
dressed in a pink and white nightie.
Doesn't she look pretty? everyone said.
Consummation at last.
To every woman a happy ending.

The poem reminds me of some of the ideas that Lorber presents in "The Social Construction of Gender". The poem's beginnings show how the little girl is taught gender. She is presented with all these effeminate things like stoves and irons at a young age. Additionally, she's advised to act in certain ways (coy, hearty). Socially, her interactions mold her into the young woman she is, feminine in her ways, but the poem kind of brings out the question-- is it all too much? She's become, as the title of the poem states, like a barbie doll, and eventually the poem ends in a sort of grave way. Yes, gender roles are changing, but does this social construction of gender still exert too much expectation?

'We the People' preamble, Declaration of Independence, and Bill of Rights Reading Response

Susan B. Anthony once said:

"It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union.... Men, their rights and nothing more; women, their rights and nothing less."

The Declaration of Independence & the Bill of Rights, some of the most celebrated documents in America, were written by a group of white, Christian, heterosexual males. Whenever the words Men and people are used in the text, it always refers to males (white, Christian, land-owning, heterosexual). Women, children, and slaves, were not considered as equals when these documents were being created. It wasn't until these subordinate groups protested to gain the same rights as these dominant males that these texts were considered to refer to them as well in terms of "equality". Of course, full equality, the kind people can only dream of, does not exactly exist yet, but it certainly has made progress. I think it hasn't always crossed my mind before, because I've always assumed that when the documents like the Declaration of Independence mention, equal, men, and people, it covers men and women alike. I guess its important to realize these facts because these founding documents were so one-sided and the struggles to change that is a part of our history and contributes to our social location and identiy (which we read about in other chapters).