I don’t feel like I have the right to tell other people what they should do with their body. I agree with what Sam was saying in class on the topic and why he feels that he would back anyone who thinks that we should decide what to do with our own bodies. I have my own personal beliefs on the topic but don’t think that I can even say definitively if I personally would be for or against abortion. There are too many variables in life and every situation is different. I don’t agree with trying to make one answer for every one of these situations. Personally if my girlfriend and I were to get pregnant I think that I would be against getting an abortion but I also don’t think that the decision is all mine. I feel like in terms of having an abortion or not having an abortion the girl involved has to be completely ok with the decision. The issue does bring up internal debates. Sex is something that can be taken too lightly due to contraceptives but can have huge implications, most notably conceiving a child. And while I am sexually active I do not feel that I am ready to be a father. I want to be a father at some point but want to make sure that I am ready to be a good father. If posed with the situation of potentially becoming a father I think I would step up to the challenge, but if theoretically I wanted to get an abortion and my girlfriend didn’t I would be extremely conflicted. Like I said I want to be a good father and if I am in a situation where I would not be able to be there for the child I would want an abortion. Like I was saying earlier though I do not feel like I have the right to tell any woman what she has to do to her body. So while the woman has to bear the child for 9 months I feel that it is unfair sometimes when the man has no say. If I wanted to have a child but the woman said she wanted to have an abortion I would understand that I can’t force that sort of responsibility on someone. So if I don’t feel like I am ready to be a father why would it be ok for that kind of responsibility to be put on me? While it is the woman’s body that is initially being affected by the decision, it will most certainly affect the man. It is naive to say if he is not ready to be a father he can just walk away and leave the woman to deal with the child.
As I was saying I think that every situation should be addressed independently and a decision should be reached that is ok with both participants.

For starters you can’t say that I don’t think you can say any of those individuals were discriminating. They weren’t given a chance to act in both cases. Like the people who walked by the white man stealing the bike were not the same people that stopped the black man from stealing the bike. I do think that you can say on average our society may be more likely to stop a black man or question what he is doing which can be considered discriminatory but you can not say any of those individuals were being discriminatory. We have no idea if the people who did in fact stop and say something for either situation would have also stopped in the other situation because they were never given the chance to. I also disagree with the statement that the two individuals were wearing the same things or even acting exactly the same way. When asked if it was his bike the white person said not exactly, where as the black gentleman said not exactly but it will be soon kind of with a little laugh. Personally I would find the person who sketchily said “it (the bike) will be soon” much more likely to be up to no good. Also while the clothes were the same make the black kid had his hat sideways and pants down low, he stood out even compared to the black ladies that walked by. However this was not the point of the test and one could argue that these differences are style differences between the cultures of the two races.
I am not pretending that this exercise did not show that as a community this group of people most definitely discriminated against the black individual, because it most definitely did. As for the question posed of how the people can try to defend that they don’t discriminate based on their beliefs when they do in fact discriminate (again I do not think that this video can be used as an example of this), I think that it has to do with people not know what or how they actually act. As humans we like to see the best in ourselves and know how we should act so like to think that this is how we act. I was recently watching almost famous and at the end of it the band members couldn’t believe the quotes or that that’s actually how they sounded. The guitarist makes a comment about how maybe that is actually how they are and that the kid got it right, but even after making this realization still wanted to deny that he called himself a golden god. This shows that even when you know that someone is telling the truth we don’t want to sound or believe the bad things about ourselves.

Let me start out by saying I do not know exactly how affirmative action works. I know that it is:
“In general terms, ‘affirmative action’is a term used to identify policies or programs aimed at leveling the playing field for minorities in the pursuit of jobs, admission to colleges or universities or even government contracts. Affirmative action policies have been established in response to decades of discrimination against minorities, even after the passage of constitutional amendments and federal statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race or ethnic origin.” (thisnation.com/question/044.html What is "Affirmative Action" and why is it so controversial?)
I think that affirmative action is definitely something that is needed. That being said, I think that it needs to be changed or modified in some way. I think that the points about starting blocks or starting position on the stairs makes it clear that it is unfair and without a doubt the reason for the enormous differences in medium household net worth. I do not think that the people that are at the bottom of the steps and most in need of help from affirmative action are the ones receiving it though. The people living in the projects or the worst areas in America may get help in terms of getting into colleges but most of them either already don’t have the grades or want to go to college. Their role models aren’t accountants or medium wage business people that make 40-60,000 dollars a year. While jobs like this would help move things forward in terms of starting blocks the role models for these areas are sports stars or musicians that make millions of dollars. Statistically speaking the odds of achieving these two roughly can be compared to the amount of money they make 1 in 40,000 or 1 in 10,000,000. Instead the people who gain the most from affirmative action are those who are already moving up the starting block stairs, Minority families who have made money and send their kids to private school or live in the suburbs with decent public schools. These kids would probably do well even without the help of affirmative action. Obviously affirmative action isn’t just about getting into college and it also has to do with helping get jobs and fighting discrimination in the work force so there is more to the story than the points I just made and affirmative action may help level the playing field later in life. I do feel that in terms of trying to help level the playing field for kids and people early on in their life and careers affirmative action should be altered because I don’t think that it is reaching the people who are in need of it the most. If it was then why are the divisions still so large?

In class and in discussion group we have been talking about the fact that men prefer women who shave and get rid of any body hair which is not on their head. The question has been raised of what is it that men are saying to women by having this idea about appearance. I think that part of the reason why men prefer women who shave their legs and arm pits as well as remove hair from their face is because it makes them seem less masculine. For a lot of girls they can’t even grow facial hair and it is something that sets them apart from men. If a girl has facial hair some men associate it as something that only a guy has and may be turned off by this. It has also become normal for women to have shaved legs and men to have hairy legs. So it can also cause the same response to have hairy legs on a girl. Of course a lot of these ideas and thoughts are a part of our
In addition to this perception about how it is more masculine to have hair it is also the womens’ decision to remove their body hair. This is partially due to their desire to feel well groomed or to look better for men. I do not believe that this is a one way street however. Men are expected to keep their facial hair well groomed or even not to have any at all. They are also expected to have shorter hair on their head. I think that our society as a whole has an issue with hair and that both sexes groom themselves the way they do in order to look more appealing to the other sex. Both sexes pluck their eyebrows (men usually only if they have a uni-brow). These styles are mainly due to what our parents or what generations before us have decided is the norm and sexy.
I consider myself somewhat of a hippie and personally don’t mind if the girl has somewhat hairy legs. Not having facial hair however is something of a personal preference just like how some guys like bigger boobs or some like short girls or blondes. If I was out camping with my girlfriend I wouldn’t expect her to have smooth legs at the end of the trip. In fact even if we weren’t on a camping trip I don’t necessarily expect her to have smooth legs. But as usual it is not just what one person feels but what a whole society feels. However, I do feel that this one is not just something that men impose on women but somewhat self-inflicted. If all women decided it was ok to have hairy legs than it wouldn’t be abnormal or masculine to have hairy legs.

I have two opinions concerning this video. The first is the fact that I agree completely with the women, and representative for Israel in terms of the fact that she has every right to say what she wants to. I feel very strongly about our freedom of speech as Americans. However much I disagree with what people are saying I still respect their right to say it. Last weekend I saw a neo-Nazi walking down college ave pacing back and forth down the street. He was wearing anti-black and anti-African American apparel with a swastika prominently displayed on his bag. I heard other people talking about him as well as some kids yelling at him to go back to where he came from. I had mixed feelings about this, for while I am strongly against what he stands for I feel that he still has the right to express his feelings. I think that it is sad that there are people who feel the way he does but also think that he is doing it to make a scene. By yelling at him the other people were giving him more power as well as giving him what he wanted. I am also scared that people will react by damaging or defacing the advertisements. If this happens it will give Pamala something that she can use as justification for the things she is saying. Even if it is just someone painting graffiti in the subway without even thinking about what they are painting over it will be misconstrued as someone acting out against what the advertisements say. I also feel that there is a huge difference between someone just making a single statement or atleast making it clear that it is their opinion and when someone posts an advertisement that makes it seem like there are a lot of people who feel this way. While it is ok to express how you feel it is not ok to try and make it seem like there are a lot of other people who feel the same way if they don’t. I think that it would be interesting if the Israel representatives posted another advertisement next to hers to the effect that they did not support, or indorse these advertisements. I am also confused as to why this falls under freedom of speech. If the advertisement was something about sex, had a naked person, or something else taboo like blood or a person defecating would they also be forced to display it? Since it is a private organization can’t they pick and choose who they do business with and what they display? Obviously Pamala would be able to post it elsewhere but why is the subway so important?

So in response to this question, I think it is important to note that they are saying that soldiers should start to view themselves as social workers with guns. The statement was not that they already are social workers with guns. This isn’t even saying that they will be social workers with guns but instead that they should start viewing themselves this way. I think that it is an interesting concept because it is important for soldiers to not only remember that they are all ambassadors but also in many situations working hand in hand with the locals to help resolve issues. Many issues and conflicts can be avoided if people take the time to not only talk but to also listen. On the other hand I also think that it is important for the soldiers to remember that they are in fact soldiers with a job to do and orders to carry out.