In Soc-119, I learned that everyone thinks differently. I learned that while you may recognize that you have the exact same viewpoints as some people, you don’t necessarily think about a concept in the same way. I learned that while you may think that you’ve heard and understood everything that someone else has to say about a topic or issue, you haven’t heard what they have to say in the way that they present it. Basically, everyone can learn something from everyone because of the very many and very different invisible factors and forces outside of our control which shape our viewpoints and opinions. This I think is the most important thing that I took from this class. The first time I heard Sam put it out there (the idea of invisible factors and forces which shape our decision making process) was during the lecture about humans making decisions, and whether or not we really have total control over our lives. Recently in my life I’ve been very interested in human behavior and psychology, and hearing that particular theory brought so many things together that I had been pondering. It was like a mind orgasm. Right then it struck me again how important it is to listen to others and really process information before you throw your opinion into anything, and again Sam’s words ran through my head “You may think that you’ve heard everything someone has to say about something, but you’ve never heard it in the way that they’re going to present it.” Honestly I think it was one of the coolest educational experiences I have had to date, other than understanding the dual particle-wave nature of light. The concept of humans, or organisms in general, not really having complete control over their decisions made me realize how interconnected all humans and life on this planet really are. It may seem a little radical but it has definitely shaped the way in which I view people, society, and humanity in general. I would recommend this course to anyone, but at the same time, if you have a naturally inquisitive and mostly unbiased mind, you don’t really need this course. I learned that everyone has the ability to think of all of the things Sam has presented throughout this course and come to the conclusions that Sam tries to steer us towards in class. I learned that we all have a similar, yet different story to tell, and that we all have the ability to recognize that we are not so different in the way that we react to or handle struggles that we experience. But most importantly, I learned in Soc-119 that we all have an obligation as existing beings to make a self-discovery, find our passion, and chase after what makes us happy, because hey, “we’re all going to die anyways."

I think that there are a whole bunch of reasons why guys don’t ask their partner whether or not they were satisfied after sex, reasons which are different for every guy of course. I think that for many men it comes down to a fear of a feeling of “rejection” if their partner says that they didn’t get any satisfaction out of intercourse or the sexual act. This I think is ridiculous, but I can understand it. On one hand, you should feel no shame in hearing that your partner wasn’t as gratified by intercourse as you were because, hey, you just had an orgasm dude, , you should feel great. But on the other hand, I can understand the willingness of the man to make the partner feel or experience the same level of pleasure, and from that I can understand a feeling of incompetence because the man may feel like he was rude or impolite because he couldn’t allow his partner to reach an orgasm. I feel like that’s more of an emotional obstacle that is felt more so by men who are a bit more emotional and caring; by someone who typically cares about his partners experience as much as his. Another reason why I think some guys do not really ask about their partner’s experience is because they truly do not care. Some guys really only care about reaching their orgasm, turning over, and going to sleep. It just doesn’t mean that much to the man whether or not his partner experienced an orgasm or not; he got his and now he’s satisfied. I feel like guys who feel typically a little less empathy and sympathy towards others take this path. I also feel like another reason why guys are afraid to pop the question after sex is a fear of feeling incompetent for not being able to make their partner reach an orgasm, which I may have already mentioned in the earlier half of this response. The fourth and final reason why I think guys don’t bother to ask their partner if they were pleasured after sex is because they fear it will be awkward. I mean even if she says yes, it kind of makes you look a little weird or creepy if you ask right after sex. Maybe the girl will see you as cocky and as a douche if you ask after sex, “hey babe, you have an orgasm?” It just seems a little weird. Personally I don’t ask unless it seems like the girl is seriously displeasured after sex, and if she says she didn’t really enjoy it I’ll ask why, and what would’ve made the experience better. I personally feel no shame in asking and I feel like every guy should feel no shame in asking either, at worst you’ll know how to please your girl next time.

If I could send a message of change to the American people about any topic, it would probably have to be the issue of generalized prejudice and closed mindedness. I feel like far too many people don’t really have any idea what they say or what they’re talking about when it comes to a lot of things, simply because no one takes time anymore to actually read into or research issues of any kind before they throw their opinion into a discussion regardless of how meaningless or meaningful that discussion may be. In my opinion, people sometimes would rather argue for the sake of arguing and being right rather than arguing so that another person’s perception of an issue may be changed or cause a person to reconsider their thoughts and question their stance on the issue. More often than not, I think people develop prejudice out of immaturity and ignorance to truth. Sometimes it seems that the competitive mindset that we are all raised up to possess contributes to the issue of prejudice. We are taught growing up that we are supposed to work our asses off to get to the top and then dominate to prosper. So then naturally if we are faced with opponents of any kind we try to figure out their or its weaknesses and then capitalize on them. I feel then that people notice differences in each other, be it race, sexuality, physical appearance, or whatever, and see it as a “weakness” of sorts that they can attack, be it for a reason or not. This then definitely calls for a development of prejudice. What I would like to do is bring people together through music, especially large venues, and just open up the minds of thousands to the fact that we all as a nation, be it upper, middle, or lower class, share much, much more common ground as human beings than we ever really recognize. I feel that music is the best way to express personal beliefs and an equally as effective means of spreading messages. Music obviously brings people together, but typically it brings similar people together. What I would also like to do is to express the message of overall equality in a diverse musical means so that not just one demographic people can connect to it, but so that all sorts of people can understand and appreciate the message. More importantly I would like to collaborate with well known artists to create timeless music so that the message would not just be seen as a movement of a generation but as a piece of history that can be looked back on and learned from. All the proceeds of any concerts performed I’d donate to charities and equal rights movement foundations across the country.

This question is great because it offers a butt load of content to respond to. My personal feelings regarding affirmative action are extremely mixed because I feel that I am not nearly educated enough on what it is, the issues surrounding it, and the ways in which it benefits and hurts people. But earlier in my life I had a pretty strong opinion on what I understood to be affirmative action, so I’ll run with that and attack this question from that viewpoint. Coming from a working class family, I was always taught that nothing in life is given, but rather must be earned, so it goes without really saying that my parents didn’t spoil myself and my siblings as children. When I got a taste of what affirmative action is/really got somewhat exposed to it was when I was applying to colleges for information about their programs of study. What I did was fill out a generalized information application which would be sent out to hundreds of universities and colleges which matched my preferences. I noticed that the application had many questions on it which inquired about my socio-economic background or demographic and asked my guidance counselor why that was and why it mattered. She proceeded to explain to me what affirmative action is without really saying the words “affirmative action”. I then thought “Wow this is really stupid, some kid or a group of kids could keep me and/or another group of white kids from getting into a university just because of their race?” I would say that at the time I had a very negative outlook on affirmative action and considered it to be an outdated tool which was used to create a level playing field (job markets, college demographics etc) for people of all races and backgrounds, and furthermore thought that it had a negative impact on racism in America by somewhat insinuating that there is still racial inequality in this country. Now though, I recognize that indeed there is much more of a prevalence of racial inequality in America, and affirmative action is not only necessary from a racial aspect, but also from an overall perspective. For instance, I now recognize that I have probably benefitted from affirmative action tens of times in my life without even knowing it, and perhaps who knows, maybe I was a beneficiary of affirmative action in being accepted to PSU. I understand the need for the creation of a level playing field, but for every person who benefits from affirmative action, there is someone who misses or loses out on that same opportunity. So, is it beneficial to society? Yes. Is it harmful to society as well? Yes, harmful in the fact that some job fields do suffer from a decline in quality of work because of affirmative action, I.e. a job being given to someone of lesser qualifications because of race or a lacking in socio-economic standing. Although this surely has happened somewhere, it certainly isn’t as big of a problem as some would like to make it seem. Jobs where quality is an issue because of affirmative action seem to be those which are lower paying and require less of those employed. Overall I think affirmative action is a great idea, but the concept will never be perfect or fine-tuned enough/applied correctly so that everyone in society will be satisfied with it.

Coming from a family with a long lineage in the working/middle and even lower class, I was raised with the mindset of “whatever you earn, you work for, and if you want to earn something big then you have got to work your ass off to get it.” Seeing as that way of thinking was instilled in me during my developmental years, I did not really deviate from it up until my adolescence, where it is typical for developing teenagers to be rebellious towards what they know and for that matter pretty much any societal constraint or construct. Up until about sixteen or seventeen, I would say that I really didn’t believe tax rates should be that high and that people should be able to keep most of what they earn, considering it was they who worked for it. But around this time I realized that there are indeed people who rely on social programs to just barely get by and pay the rent/feed themselves. With this realization I also recognized that the U.S. is actually, as much as people would like to disagree, a socialist structured government.

This is an awesome question because I find it very interesting and personal. To start off, I feel like I have to share my own views on spirituality and religion. I used to be a pretty aggressive and one sided person, meaning that if your views differed from mine I’d just completely shut you and anything you might have to say out of my mind, and rather than try to have empathy I would try to hammer my ideas into your head to make you believe my opinion was right. That was when I was in my tween and early teen years. At this time I would also consider myself to have been a pretty devout and determined Christian. Around this time my views started to shift, I couldn’t tell you why or how they did, and even if I could I’m sure it would take more than 10 pages to describe my change in mindset. This all leads up to me kind of taking a new view to spirituality and religion. Like I said I used to be a pretty aggressive closed minded person, but now I would consider myself to be a very accepting and passive guy. By taking a step back and trying to understand other people’s ideas and viewpoints, I’ve kind of opened my mind and grown mentally and spiritually. I’d no longer consider myself to be a devout Christian. In fact I don’t even think I believe in any type of god characterized by religion. As of now I wouldn’t consider myself to be an atheist, but rather a weak agnostic. So then, I’ll have to answer this question from the perspective of an atheist. If some discovery was made proving the existence of a god, or I was enlightened to the understanding of this god, my life would possibly change. I’m assuming that in the context of this question, the kid was probably referring to a Christian god. Now my decision on whether or not to follow this god would be based on what division of the Christian faith this god is proclaimed to be from. I don’t think I would really subscribe to a catholic or strict version of this god, as I don’t necessarily agree with those principles outlined by that type of faith. But if this god really was proven to exist, I’d more than likely spend the rest of my life trying to rationalize and assimilate the actions of people and society as a whole to the principles about life which were laid out by that god. I’d then probably spend the rest of my life worry free if an afterlife was involved with that god and that religion, but I don’t think I’d conform to any moral principles prescribed by the religion of those who follow that god considering I still have free will. If anything I’d just try to understand that god and try to see if I could align myself with his/her views if he/she was proven to exist.

It seems that many others would agree in saying the Iranian girl who commented in class had a great amount of courage to say what she had to say. I could tell right when she began to speak that she was nervous, but along with the anxious aura she was giving off I could sense a little bit of anger in her tone while she was “apologizing” for trying to not sound offensive before she actually commented on anything. When she finally spoke her piece, which went along for some time, I could understand and sympathize with everything she had said. Right then it was completely evident (as it should have been to everyone in the classroom) that everything that had been said in that lecture preceding her comment with regards to empathy could be directly applied to her situation. I wouldn’t be surprised if that whole interaction was scripted by Sam himself to fit right into his lecture which he presented at the beginning of class. Of course it wasn’t, but there couldn’t have been a better opportunity for everyone in the lecture hall to apply what they had just learned about empathy and see if they could understand things from the Iranian girl’s perspective. . I put it like that because I’m sure there were some people sitting there, completely ignorant to either her comments or what had just been presented to them for the previous 80 minutes, who were offended by what the girl had to say about the U.S. sanctions on Iran, or by her asking for an answer as to why “Americans hate Iranians/Middle Eastern people.” The typical response by some of these people would be “of course we don’t hate you!! Duh!!”, that’s the easy conclusion to come to. “We hate you? What the heck? I don’t hate you so why would you assume we all do?” That’s a closed minded approach. Rather ask the question “Hmm, I wonder why she thinks we hate her?” and then pursue that avenue and try to understand her perspective. I think she felt nervous in saying what she had to say only because she was probably frustrated with the inability to put such intense emotions into clearer thought. I feel that it’s safe to say “intense emotion” because it must be extremely and deeply angering to experience discrimination and hatred which you feel has no real basis or justifiable cause. On top of all this I find it extremely interesting and somewhat ironic to hear testimony from someone who has a first-hand account of the effects of the sanctions the U.S. has put on Iran in front of NATO representatives. I would have loved to hear their opinions on the sanctions and see if they could explain whether or not empathy plays a role in their decision making as a mediating force between nations.

I think that this is an absolutely fantastic question that I could answer with great certainty while providing some relatable points for others to ponder. What he is basically asking, or at least what I interpret him asking is "Do you see a difference between racial and social alignment.” Why I think this is such a great question is because I feel that many people do indeed find a distinction between a person’s ethnicity and how they assimilate themselves to different social groups. More importantly I believe that people quite often blur the line between the two. On a much more frequent basis people are likely to judge a person of any ethnic background by how they present themselves socially. What I mean by “social presentation” is how they dress and tend to their appearance. For a simple example, people seem to tag others who wear flashy jewelry, flat brimmed hats, fur hooded coats, and baggy jeans with a bandanna hanging out of the back pocket as “ghetto” or might say “damn son this white bull think he a brotha or somethin’.” While that example is extremely informal, I could certainly tell you that I’ve heard similar things in real life situations and even from friends just kidding around, but I digress. The more important thing to focus on here is the describing terms used; what is meant by “ghetto” and “brotha”? While some might argue that “ghetto” is a descriptive term used to describe a social scene, it is without doubt that “brotha” is definitely used to describe a social scene. So reconnecting with the original question, we now have an instance where the line between racial and social identification is blurred. Since when does dressing a certain way automatically align a person with a group of race, and how has this come to be? For another example, take into consideration not only the number of times, but the exact situations in which you’ve heard someone say “Dude that’s so Asian of you!” What comes to mind? I can bet that you’re not thinking of that time you got down and dirty and changed your car’s oil or the time you decided to do some home improvement and clean out your gutters. You’re probably thinking of the time you solved a pretty hard calculus problem. So again I’ll ask, how and when did doing advanced math or science become an “Asian” thing to do? And once more we find that the line between social stigma and ethnicity has been blurred. Sure, some people of certain cultures do possess innate abilities to perform some tasks with a higher degree of aptitude than others, but it shouldn’t mean that all people of that race should be identified with that skill set as well. So in closing I’d say that people tend to lose sight of the difference between social and racial identification, and more often than not assign certain social stigmas to a person of a certain race, but still are able to find the difference between a person’s race and societal alignment.

In my opinion, racism isn't a defined as a binary or a black and white term, subject, or issue (no pun intended). It's not so easy to point something out as racist because we don’t necessarily always know what is considered racist. Racism then in my view is relative to the situation, and on top of that, there is a huge distinction between being racist and being prejudiced. While I have already said that racism is a relative issue and somewhat in the gray area, I will say that there is definitely a certain point at which you can clearly define a comment or an act as clearly racist. So then we reach the point of coming to a definition of racism. I think that it is the blatant and deliberate undermining or refutation of a person’s thoughts, opinions, actions, or beliefs, solely based on the fact that someone is of a different race. Now another idea of racism which was proposed to me by a friend back in the day is, in his own words, “the acknowledging of another person’s race as differing from your own, and rather prejudice is where we run into the social issues like hate crimes and unequal rights.” While I slightly agree with this point of view, I don’t fully support it, because I do believe that racism is much more than acknowledging a difference, and rather I see prejudice as a product of racism, and stereotyping then as a product of prejudice. Prejudice is the judgments placed on a person’s character because of misplaced assumptions that stem from racism (the deliberate undermining of a person’s actions/thoughts because of race) which really have no proof to be backed with. So the second part of the question basically asks “what would the difference in reaction be if the same ‘joke’ made by Chi Omega was done by a comedian of differing race in a comedy club.” I’m sure that we would all be able to easily answer this question with the same response saying that context has a huge factor, but what I’d also like to point out is that it’s still racist. In fact, any joke directed at a person of another race which undermines their thoughts or actions made by any comedian of any race is in my opinion considered to be racist. Also even though Chi Omega meant this completely in jest, and it was completely obvious that it was a joke, people STILL took offense to it. So then I believe that it is fair to say that context and setting play an enormous role in how racist jokes are interpreted. Underneath it all though racism is truly a childish matter and if someone can’t lighten up and find the humor in such a situation, then they certainly aren’t human.

I believe that it is simply a matter of ignorance on the part of those who refuse to believe Barack Obama when he refers to himself as a Christian. However, I do not believe that it comes down to ignorance with regards to the general population's misconception of him as a Muslim, as there are many distractions and communication failures which lead to the wrongful reporting of the truth. Speaking of communication failures, I think that it is absolutely ridiculous how media outlets and news stations have become so politicized and how they have the ability to skew the truth or allow for such large scale political polarizing of events. In some cases, they do not at all simply report the truth, or at least report the truth in whole (which is the key idea in journalism). It would seem that neither FOX nor NBC news objectively cover events. It is the use of sound bites, short little pieces of the truth which the media uses to report on many things. I think that none of this confusion would even exist if the president’s proclamation of his faith was properly reported the first time.But enough about the news stations, it’s clearly a multi-faceted issue which stems from Obama’s race and race relations in the US. It’s undeniable that there is a great history of prejudice and racism in this country and it’s ever so clear that the stereotypes that have been placed on racial groups certainly play a role in this situation. While we’ve shown that we can indeed elect a president of ethnic background other than Caucasian, I don’t think that means that we can say we’ve progressed too far as a society. The confusion that surrounds Obama’s faith is a result of those people who are firing conjecture at his integrity who don’t want to accept the fact that he, a man of African American background, made it into office. These people act in a rather immature way in trying to make him seem to be unworthy of trust by making it appear as though he is lying about something so simple, his faith. Then this idea gets spread around through the use of social media to the point where it reaches millions who then wonder if what has been presented to them is truthful. So naturally, confusion arises, and in an honest attempt to clear up the truth, these millions of people are left with the only option of confronting the President himself about whether or not he is a Christian. This is done then through news reporters who have the option of directly and objectively reporting his response, or politically weighing down what he says. So then, I believe that this mass confusion surrounding Barack Obamas faith is the result of biased news networks, deeply rooted racial prejudice in our culture, and stupidity.