People have been migrating to America for years and years, people from all over the world without much in common except for their pursuit of the American Dream. The American Dream is one of success, happiness, and wealth. This dream has seemingly dwindled in front of the eyes of American’s for the past few years. The biggest recognized cause for is the economy. And of course, most Americans do not realize that the American Dream is so hard to achieve because of things like affirmative action and the King of the Mountain theory. However, I think the dream is still alive, just maybe not as tangible as it used to be.
The King of the Mountain theory gives an explanation to how certain people and corporate America can stay at the top economically, controlling most of the nation’s wealth and maintaining that control. It is an unfair playing field and the 1% has all of the leverage. They can control whom they allow on top of the mountain, so to speak, and that happens to people family and others similar to themselves. This unfair game of wealth leaves most Americans (the 99%) powerless and far away from achieving the American Dream. Because of the King of the mountain ‘game’, most Americans will never be able to attain as much wealth as the people on top. But the dream isn’t about being on the very top, success can be accomplished without joining the 1% on top of the mountain.
A way of keeping people at the bottom of the mountain is affirmative action. This goes unrecognized because it is disguised as a way to help minorities advance. And maybe that was the original intentions of this act, but it has been twisted to benefit the powerful and keep those on the bottom, on the bottom. The rule of affirmative action is to hire minorities, of course only a small percentage is required, but females are usually one of the minorities when it comes to job applications. What’s this mean? WHITE females can be hired and the company or institution can claim to have adhered to affirmative action laws. This keeps wealth going to white people— females, and the men they’re married to.
With so many unnoticeable ways of keeping the rich, rich and the poor, poor, it is hard to see how the American Dream can be achieved. But according to sociology, some things are determined by society and some things are left to individual freedom of choices. The King of the Mountain ‘game’ and affirmative action are examples of determination, some people will never have a chance to join the 1% because of the family they were born into, the genitals they have, or the color of their skin. However, people can work hard, stay focused, and persevere in hopes of achieving the American Dream.

When Sam put the fact of how common sexual abuse is into perspective for the class, I felt a surge of so many different emotions. The first one was disbelief, accompanied by some curiosity. How could I not know if someone so close to me was sexually abused? If it was done by a family member, like most sexual abuse amongst children is, who in my family could ever be capable of doing something so horrible? It is unbelievable that something so heinous, disturbing, and immoral could take place so close to me but yet I could have no awareness of it. Then I became sad; sad that someone I love could have had their innocence robbed from them at an age when the worst pain they experience should be scraped knees. I was sad that anyone, let alone a loved one could be dealing with so much pain, be completely alone, and be silenced with fear. I was angry. With everything going on involving Penn State and the alleged victims of Jerry Sandusky, I haven’t stopped thinking about how disgusting Sandusky’s actions were. I want him to go to jail; I want justice to be served. To imagine that a family member could have committed this crime, remain unpunished, and have his or her actions be so inconspicuous is sickening and infuriating. I felt betrayed. Even though there is a chance no one in my family has been sexually abused or has sexually abused a child, I couldn’t help but feel betrayed. I have felt this way the past week. I have felt betrayed that administrators and leaders of Penn State could fail to report such a crime. Since Penn State has become my family, it hurt to learn the news of the Sandusky scandal but I do not know these people personally. I had (and still do) faith in them but they never came to my house for a holiday, I’ve never called them to wish them a happy birthday, and I’ve never confided in them. Being betrayed by an actual family member, rather than people I have grown to feel like family to, would be worse, so much worse I cannot even fathom or explain how devastating it is or would be. Lastly, most importantly, I was frightened. I have six nieces and nephews between the ages of four and ten. The second I thought of one of them being sexually abused, I became sick and terrified for them. The six of them mean more than the world to me. I want to cry with them every time one of them cries. Every time one of my nieces or nephews get hurt, no matter how little or how great the pain is, I wish I could take it all away. To even try to imagine something so horrifying happening to them makes me tear up, makes me want to protect them from experiencing something so traumatic, and makes me want to make sure they never feel the fear that silences them.

The riot Wednesday got out of hand. I live on Beaver Avenue and I watched it turn from a decently large gathering in to a giant crowd. I knew they were going to start. The news was unexpected and angered a lot of students. Also, Beaver Avenue has been the place for riots and rallies for Penn State students for a long time; everyone knows where to go if they want to join in. So it is safe to say that a lot of students would have created and attended the riot without the use of social media. However, there is no way that the riot would have become so large without things like Facebook and Twitter. This was somewhat obvious because the news streaming from social media was mostly about the riot on Beaver Avenue, not the gathering at Joepa’s home or the gathering by the Joe Paterno statue. Those rallies did not grow to be so large as the one on Beaver and College did.
As I looked out of my window onto Beaver Avenue, it seemed that almost everyone was holding up a phone or a camera to take pictures, and most of those who were snapping pictures were one their cell phones texting others or calling people. Most of the people on Beaver Avenue and College Avenue just wanted to say that they were there and others wanted to see what it was like, out of curiosity, after seeing all of the pictures posted on social media. The riot would have gotten bigger because of calls and texts, but not nearly to the size it exploded to in such a short time. As I was on Facebook, so many Penn State students’ statuses were about the action downtown, whether they were there or they didn’t support it, they were helping spread awareness. People were posting pictures of the amount of people in the streets, pictures of the destruction, and videos of students chanting. People around the world were tweeting about the riot also.
The riot began because the students were angered by the decision made by the Board of Trustees concerning Joe Paterno’s job, the students were caught off guard, the students felt betrayed by their administration, those who committed crimes and those who took the most unfair and most unnecessary action to try to save the university’s reputation. Between social media, texts, calls, live news reports on TV, people were going to find out about the riot. Because of this, I strongly believe that the riot would have started and expanded without social media. But social media did increase awareness around campus and around the world. It also increased the speed at which people heard about the riot. This could be the reason why police were not able to control the riot on College Avenue; they didn’t expect for it to grow so large so quickly and they were unprepared.

To begin, I need to start by saying instead of generalizing Mexicans in order to respond to this question, I am going to generalize illegal immigrants. Legal Mexicans and Mexican Americans do not contribute to hard labor jobs as much as illegal Mexicans do. Although this is a stereotypical statement, stereotypes tend to come from generalizations, and generalizations tend to come from truths about a majority. It is very common to see illegal immigrants in hard labor positions with low pay and not so comfortable conditions. For example, common illegal immigrant jobs are in farming, landscape, cooking, and factories. These are tough and they usually don’t have fair conditions, but they are necessary for our country and our economy.
Illegal Mexicans tend to work in these hard, less than minimum wage jobs because they are desperate for work. They came to a strange country in search of opportunities and money in order to help their families. Especially in a time when jobs are limited, in addition to language barriers and the lack of formal education, illegal immigrants will settle for any job that will provide them with some sort of income. On the other hand, most Americans grow up fantasizing about their right to the “American Dream” and being told to never settle. The young American generations were taught to go to school, attend college, and then work in an honorable, well-fit career. Although this dream is becoming less and less of a reality for most Americans, we still do not have the mindset to settle or work in a field below our education, unless we become financially desperate enough to do so.
Illegal Immigrants are also more skilled in hard labor fields than most Americans. Most Americans attend school until they are at least about sixteen years old. In fact, it’s illegal for parents to not send their child to school in America until the legal dropout age. Mexicans who come to America illegally, however, are not very rich or well educated, otherwise they would not leave their home or come here illegally. Instead of growing up with a formal education, most of these people grew up doing hard labor, trying to make money for their families. Along with skill, illegal immigrants are determined. If they weren’t, they would not travel so far, leaving family and friends behind, with so much to lose. They are determined to work in whatever field they can and they are efficient in hard labor jobs because that is what they know. American tend to be schooled in less labor focused jobs and do not tend to be determined enough to work in any field. They grew up in America, they didn’t risk losing everything to get here, and they didn’t pay thousands of dollars to get a degree and cut grass for minimum wage.
Business owners are also responsible for the lack of Americans who hold hard labor jobs. Americans have rights; labor laws about working conditions, hours, and wages protect them. Business owners also have to abide by tax laws when employing citizens, which they don’t have to do when paying illegal immigrants “under the table.” To hire American citizens is more costly, which means less profit for the business owner.

No matter how much people want to think that races are equal in the world and there is no white supremacy, there is. The proof of a white centered world is in the statistics; statistics showing income, job call backs, arrests, and so many other areas, which are skewed in favor of white people.
I believe the reason for the inequalities within our white centered world are caused from numerous years of being the dominant race, not because of a biological characteristic of the white race. If we lived in a black centered world, the same inequalities would still exist all over the globe, in every area of our lives. However, black people would be the dominant race, the suppressors, while whites would be the minority, suppressed by the world they live in.
Countless studies have been conducted in order to view black suppression on an equal standard. Men of the same education, same economic background, dressed the same way, basically men who were exactly the same, except they had different color skin, were sent on several job interviews. The white man received noticeably more call backs from employers than the black man did. In a black centered world, the black man would have received more call backs. Another study was conducted among children around age 3. They were shown two dolls, one with white skin and one with black, then they were asked a series of questions where they were to choose a doll. The questions included things like, “Which doll is prettier?” and “Which doll is the bad doll?”. Most of the kids said the white doll was prettier and the black doll was bad, their choices were not affected by their own skin color. This is proof that our society associates white features with beauty and black with being bad. In a black centered world, features such as bigger lips, kinked hair, wider noses, and darker skin would be seen as more beautiful than common white features. Studies like this one show how strong peoples’ views are constructed and socialized despite their age or their own racial identity.
White privilege is stemmed from years and years of inequality and a dominant white race. Things like slavery, segregation, and shadow towns, have helped the dominant race suppress the minority. If black people made up the dominant race, our history would have been constructed against the white race. Races do not have certain biological characteristics, for example, the entire white race is not genetically mean. People simply tend to be judgmental and tend to cluster to those who share similarities, for example, skin color. A black centered world would have began similar to the way our current reality began, possibly white slavery or segregation, resulting in a world very similar to today’s world, except opposite skin colors.

I didn’t think I had any difficulty with discussing race. I feel like I voice my opinion during my discussion group, despite what is or is not politically correct. But I guess that may be because everyone in the discussion group is honest and not judgmental. However, our culture does not tend to be free of judgment. Also, because our culture is predominantly white, there is a lot of focus on political correctness, not offending minorities, and moving past racism and prejudices, all of which we ignore in discussion group. During the lecture on the stages of being white, I started to think about the way I speak about race outside of my discussion group.

Upon learning about the six stages of being white and thinking about my interactions with race, I have concluded that I am mostly in stage two, although I do believe I show signs of all stages within my interactions. A person in stage two shows sign of guilt or uncomfort when discussing race. He focuses on political correctness, stumbling over how to speak his mind, sometimes keeping his feelings inside so as to not offend anyone of a minority or appear racist. I often find myself stumbling over my choice of words. I don’t like to refer to people by a grouping they may not like. For example, calling a black person black or African American, although this is a rudimentary example and I usually stumble over larger questions.
If I would have been called up to the race table in class, I would have felt uncomfortable when asked to describe the black woman wearing the hijab because at the time I did not know the correct term for a hijab. I also wouldn’t have wanted to find the darkest black person in the class because we have had lectures on how most people view lighter skin to be more beautiful. In both of these instances, my choice of words or actions would be stunted because I would not want to offend anyone.

I hope that I could become a stage six eventually. With a career in nursing, it is important to be able to feel completely comfortable with racial differences. Not that I am racist in the littlest sense, but I don’t want my political correctness to ever inhibit my interactions with patients. And hopefully, with experience and class like Soc 119, I will be able to reach stage six at some point, despite how long it may take or how hard it may be. I do hope I can surpass the stages of anger and trying to impress and jump to a place where I am accepting, accepted, and comfortable with my opinions and discussions, a place in stage six.

The current porn industry is completely male centered, much like the common idea of sex. The man is the dominant figure, there is very little four play, the thrusting is fast and hard, there is barely any kissing or soft touching, and the whole thing ends when the male orgasms-although the female sometimes coincidently orgasms or pretends to orgasm as the man climaxes. Basically every aspect adult films, except possibly the horrible acting, would be different in a women centered industry.
Women and men are very different when it comes to sex and arousal. As Sam would say, men can get aroused when the wind blows. However, women’s arousal is a much slower process. Four-play is pretty much crucial for women. They need more touching and kissing and not just the usual blowjob leading quickly to intercourse like most porn films illustrate. Four-play would probably be the most changed part of adult films if they were female centered rather than male centered. Also, most women like sex to be somewhat slow, at least slower than the pace in porn films. Women have sex with more emotion than men so it is important for sex to be intimate with soft touching and kissing rather than dirty talk, rough grabbing, and hard thrusting. The entire interaction from flirting to climaxing needs to be much slower and a little more personal.
With a female standing behind the camera, I’m sure there would be less lesbian scenes. Although studies show that both, heterosexual men and women become aroused from viewing lesbian scenes, heterosexual women are just less interested in viewing such scenes. I also think there would be less oral sex in the films. Watching another female give a male oral sex or vice versa just does not seem intriguing.
Another difference would be more focus on the female orgasm. Females in porn movies seem to be climaxing throughout the entire interaction because of their heavy breathing and moaning. Since this is clearly not the reality, it raises the question, when is the woman actually climaxing? The viewers can tell when the man climaxes because that is when the sex stops but things are a little more cloudy when it comes to the female orgasm. I guess the reason why the female acts as if they’re climaxing throughout sex, in porn and real life, is because we live in a male centered world so females are socialized to send the message that they are satisfied in bed.
Female centered adult films would be less raunchy, hardcore, and adventurous and more intimate and sensual. This influx of emotion into adult films may be too overwhelming for viewers, especially males. In the porn industry, I actually believe it is better to have a male behind the camera because the extra emotion, touching, kissing, ad slow pace would slows down the process of the film and masturbation. The reality of sex should be equally male and female, but for matters of porn, a male centered view is not a bad thing.

In lecture last week, Sam discussed foreign aid. It completely changed everything I thought about it before entering class that day. Initially, I thought that the United States gave too much money, money that we needed to give to our own country instead of donating millions to underdeveloped countries. I thought Americans were overly generous, actually to a fault because in a time of economic struggle, Americans need to put their cash back into OUR economy. Fortunately, Sam opened my eyes to the selfish reality of foreign aid; the lecture made me look beyond the information given to Americans from large corporations. Sam put up several statistics that showed how much the United States receives from their donations. The numbers on one of Sam’s PowerPoint slides, showed that more than half of the money was sent back to the United States through ties formed between countries enforcing that goods be bought from America. These ties made a seemingly generous and selfless donation to Africa (example shown in class) prove to be selfish and somewhat inhumane. America, instead of helping under developed countries grow and become more independent, is making these poor countries independent through ties, becoming a new source of income for the United States.
Sam also showed the class a bar graph of the amount of money several developed countries donate to countries in need each year. The United States was at the bottom of the graph, proving to give one of the lowest sums to under developed countries. The global economy is in turmoil, not just the economy of the United States’. So, if other countries can afford to donate larger amounts that the U.S., why can’t the U.S. not take so much of their donations back as income? Even through a good deed, the capitalistic U.S. and large American corporations make themselves come off as greedy.
I no longer feel that the United States gives too much to other countries when Americans should be helping themselves first in this time of need. Similar to the emergency rules on an airplane addressing whose oxygen to put on first, you must help yourself first in order to be able help someone else. However, the U.S. is helping itself, donating to appear helpful and making unfair “ties” to receive money from the countries it helps. I don’t think it is a bad idea to make some money since America needs to put money into its economy but it is not good that America helps countries in a way that makes them dependent on the U.S.. Because this is such a touchy subject, I believe that it is better for people to help under developed countries directly and physically. For instance, studying abroad, going on missions, joining the peace corp. In aiding in physical ways, there is no worry that money will end up in the “wrong” hands and people can teach those in need so they can become more independent and efficient.

The Haiti project is going to be interesting, to say the least. I am really looking forward to participating in it. I’ve never spent too much time thinking about the socioeconomic status of other countries. I always thought that the United States gave too much to under developed countries when we, the United States, were in times or hardship ourselves. However, after the last few classes, my thoughts on the topic have changed drastically. I now know that Americans receive a lot in return for our help and some things the U.S. does actually cripple the economy in countries like Haiti. I am looking forward to making a difference in someone’s, in particular, a Haitian entrepreneur’s, life. Since charity work for underdeveloped countries often goes wrong, money going to the hands of the wrong people or actually hindering the countries socioeconomic development, I am happy to be working directly with a hardworking individual without taking anything from him or her in return.
I watched several of the videos and read many of the stories about the entrepreneurs on the soc 119 blog. I really enjoyed watching the video of Sonia, the woman who produced insulated lunch bags, luggage, handbags, and backpacks. It’s amazing that she supports her entire family selling bags for only about four U.S. dollars, bags that she makes on a single, old sewing machine. She needs a new, more advanced, larger machine to produce all of her luggage. Money is also needed. This way, she could buy more materials in bulk so they cost less, she could sell her products for even cheaper, and more Haitians would be able to buy things from her. We could also help come up with ways to market her product, try to get the word out, increase the demand of the product. I was also touched by Figaro’s story. She is a mother of four sons and she runs a baking business. On her video, she says that she needs a car for deliveries and a laptop to track orders. Since she loses about two hours of baking time each day to walk her sons to and from school, the car would be a good investment, cutting down transportation time, increase baking time, and therefore, increase the amount of pastries made each day. With more money, se can hire more help, also increasing productivity and revenue. She needs more money so her sons can finish school, since the two older boys have tuition she is responsible for.
Some of the entrepreneurs’ stories resonated with me, but they were all touching and eye opening. When reading and watching the stories, all I wanted to do was help all of these individuals, help the whole country. Unfortunately, American’s “help” helped worsen the socioeconomic status of Haiti. There’s a very thin line between helping and crippling. I am looking forward to removing the selfishness that often accompanies doing good deeds and trying to help a Haitian entrepreneur enhance their business, increase their income, and improve their life.

The other day in class Sam put up a graph showing the relation between family income and SAT scores. The two were directly related, as family income increased, so did the students’ test scores. I think this conclusion makes complete sense. First of all, the SAT isn’t a fair test. It’s a test intended to trick students, in order to see how well they can think critically. There are numerous SAT courses that teach test takers how to maneuver the test and notice the “tricks” in the exam. Courses, like Kaplan, are said to help raise SAT scores by a hundred or more points in each section, a significant score difference. These courses cost money, about a couple of thousand dollars. The cost restricts the amount of students able to take the test to students whose families have money for these classes. In addition to the costly, helpful SAT courses, students with more money have other advantages. Children from high-income families also benefit from the support of their parents. Parents who push the importance of education and a college degree and push their children to do well on the SATs in order to pursue higher education, while parents of low income households put more focus on keeping their children safe, fed, and as financially stable as possible. Neighborhoods are arranged by social class, which is obvious because the cost of living varies by location. Families living in expensive neighborhoods pay more taxes, taxes that go toward the public school system in their district. Unfortunately, taxes are divided amongst schools in each town, instead of the entire state. Because of this distribution, children growing up in lower class neighborhoods are receiving education from schools that are less equipped and usually have teachers with less credibility than students in middle and upper class neighborhoods. These students usually end up being less prepared for the SAT than those in families with higher income. Also, a decent amount of children who grow up in wealthy households go to private schools, schools whose main focus is sending their students to noble colleges. In contrast, some public schools in low-income districts focus on getting children to graduate rather than drop out of high school. Children from high income families also benefit from the support of their parents, who push the importance of education and a college degree, and who push their children to do well on the SATs in order to pursue higher education.
Of course SAT scores are also due to the individual’s intelligence, thinking skills, and test taking skills. As we also discussed in class, nothing is a black and white issue when it comes to the topics determinism and freedom. Every individual has a personal, free-willed effect on his or her SAT score.