When I first heard of Soc 119 it was in my BA required class. Odd place to hear about Soc 119, I know. But in BA we had an extra credit assignment that was to go to a world in conversation discussion. After the discussion I really had a lot of fun, I learned what people thought about a variety of things, and the facilitators where great as well. So because of that I decided to take Soc 119. Now what I got out of it: a difference in opinion, as well as Sam made me think about things that I normally don’t think about, but I rather already have an opinion formed. At first I didn’t really get much out of the class honestly, I already knew about everything discussed, and I honestly had the opinions that where clearly the way I would think about a certain issue. However, the issue that really got me thinking was about affirmative action. Affirmative action was always something that I would shove the blame onto. I would normally just say that a certain group got in just because of affirmative action, and it made me feel like there was no point in even applying because other groups would just get affirmative action and that’s why I would not get something that I applied for. I do notice now though that affirmative action, while I still do not agree with it, is necessary for the moment. I do however question when it will stop. I’m also surprised that Sam didn’t bring this up in class. That affirmative action, if it keeps going, will eventually have run its course and will need to stop. But when we try to stop affirmative action it will be labeled as unfair to African Americans because we had this in place for so long that taking it away would cause a whole another issue. But overall I feel that Sams class has just allowed me to look back and realize how things work in the world. I don’t really get that in many of my classes now. In fact, I don’t get that in any of my classes. I also like the fact that the class is 4 credits. I feel that you do put a lot of time and effort into coming to class, but the rewards for getting an A in a 4 credit class are well worth it. I also wanted to say how I feel that Sam is a very approachable guy, which I feel helps him teach Soc 119. If Sam where unapproachable I feel that the class would be run in a completely different manner, and honestly, a different professor would most likely make the class bad.

I think there is a female gaze just as there is a male one. First and foremost I should disclose that I really enjoyed the lecture with Sam and his wife. The “needy Penis” lecture really sheds some light upon the values that we normally do not discuss anywhere else. I really hope that Sam and his wife will keep up the good work in delivering the lecture. I took my girlfriend and my other friends and invited them to come; they had never really thought about those thoughts in the same manner either. Anyway, back to the question at hand, I feel that the female gaze is very similar to male gaze. Like discussed in the lecture, the male gaze is more geared towards sexuality of women; for example exposing their body features of “teasing” with their body features such as wearing very little clothes. With the woman gaze, I feel it is similar, yet different at the same time. Women have magazines with men that look sophisticated and powerful, and they also have men that look “sexy” and naked as well. So overall, they have the sex appeal and the provocative and powerful alpha male. The female gaze plays on both the sexual lusts but also the hunger to have a man that is in power as well. But overall, both of the “gazes” are very similar. I remember walking through stores, and you might see several magazines. The magazine covers are exactly what speaks to the individual about their desires and what they want in the opposite sex: such as what the female gaze is and what the male gaze is. For example, many male magazines have exactly what the male gaze is, borderline nudity, and in some cases nudity, and/or women taking off their clothes and teasing or something very similar of the sort. I just feel that the opposite implies the same thing; the women have their magazines just as the men have their playboy magazines. Not everyone realizes that the magazines cater to what we are referring to as the “female gaze”, but that is exactly what these magazines are catering for. There is very little that marketing firms leave out, and in order to snag the reader’s attention, they will follow whatever the reader wants to see, and in this case women want to see a sexy man that is also portrait as powerful. Usually with power comes wealth, so a man in a fine suit is usually depicted. But the man also should either a little rugged, to show sexiness, or clean shaven, depending on the preference of the women target audience that the magazine is targeting. My final point is simply that men and women gazes are very similar to one another.

I think we look at immigration instead of reforming education for a variety of reasons. First of all, the whole immigration issue is led because there are so many illegal immigrants that cross the border. Before I go any further I’d like to state my background, so that there is no confusion and that I can state feely what I feel about immigration, because I do feel strongly about the subject. I was born and raised in Germany, we had to wait for a few years like most of the legal immigrants into the United States. I feel that people feel passionate about immigration mainly because it is both: unfair to those who waited and, plain and simple, it is illegal. Let us check back upon why immigration into the United States needs to stay in check. If anyone is allowed into the United States, then our standard of living would not exist. America would not be what it is today. America prospered the most when it shut itself off from the rest of the world, but accepting anyone into their borders will lower the standard of American work. I honestly dislike the people that cross the border illegally because I had to wait my turn, and I had to wait even longer for people that jumped the fence. It feels like someone is clearing cutting the line somewhere after you have waited for a very long time. That’s what it feels like for me at least, and lots of my friends feel the same way. If we had to wait, then so does everyone else. Just because you can jump a fence, just because you can cut in line, doesn’t mean that there won’t be consequences. I feel that yes, the people that come here will have a better life, and great for them, but because they have come here they are robbing that chance from someone else that is just as deserving as them. In fact, I’d make the argument that they are even more deserving to be in the United states because they have waited instead of jumping the fence. I just find that people need to learn patience when it comes to this. As to reforming education, even if education is reformed, America is still left with the mass illegal immigrations. The education system cannot prevent a mass influx of people. If it was reformed, it may even entice more illegal immigrants to come to United States because they can take advantage of all the advantages that the United States has to offer. I just feel that if I can wait my turn, in a country all the way across the ocean, then many other should be able to do the same.

In class we talked a lot about affirmative action and nepotism. I think that nepotism is more acceptable because racism, or simply doing something for someone because of their skin color, is not used in nepotism. A person of color can ask his father (granted his father needs to be in a position of power) to help him find a job, the same way that a white person can. Whether or not that father will be able to help is another matter altogether. That matter is then depended upon socio economic status. While it may be true that white Americans have a larger pool of relatives in power here, that is simply taking a snapshot look at time now instead of looking into the future. As a side note, notice that I pointed out white Americans. I feel that Sam failed to mention this in class. He tends to generalize white people as having family here, as being established and having parents that know other people. However, this is very much not the case for immigrants that come here that are white. Whites that come from poor countries, or are poor in their own country, come to the United States and do not get affirmative action help, even though they are a minority as well. This is what I feel is wrong with the system of affirmative action. If you are empowering blacks and people of color to get aid, then you should include immigrants as a class of minority as well, instead of basing purely on skin color, why not look at the background/where they are from instead. Skin color can be very deceptive in any respect as Sam pointed out that some people that look white may be “more black” than someone that looks like they’re from Africa. Either way, back to the original point, nepotism is more socially acceptable because it is racially blind. It is based upon how hard your parents have worked and how far they have gotten in the r hierarchy ladder. Ideally they would want their children to surpass them at some point, but getting them into the door in the first place is a start as well. This doesn’t mean that white people have an advantage though. When I came to the United States my family did not know anyone, we had to work out way up. It is not as easy as it seems either. But because I am white, it is automatically assumed that I must have connections everywhere, this is a completely false judgment, and an assumption that I feel is just as racially ignorant as culturally ignorant. People need to realize that skin color, in all honesty, does not matter, it is the ability of the person that matter.

In class this week, Sam actually got what he wanted out of me, he got me thinking. I still have my own beliefs on the subject of affirmative action, however, Sam made me double take, and question those beliefs. I agree that nepotism and affirmative action are both unfair and benefit someone who should not be getting a job, be elected, or something of that nature. However, I do feel that they are very different in their nature as well. Nepotism does not favor color, it favors relatives, while affirmative action does favor color, by a drastic amount. Here is why I have a problem with affirmative action and why I think that it is very flawed. In order to understand my position, you need to know a little about me. I am a white male, I was born in Germany and moved to the United States when I was about 10 years old. My family had very little money coming into the United States as well. I do not get any aid, instead I get loans that I will be repaying once I graduate. Now let us flip this, my discrepancy with affirmative action is that I have “connections” with nepotism than any black male that grew up in this country because they were here for a longer period of time. They can have relatives or friends that got ajob somewhere. I, on the other hand, have neither family nor friends that could have been in high positions because I just moved here. Nepotism affects me in a negative manner just as much as anyone else. But then affirmative action doesn’t help me either, in fact, it hurts me as well. So where is the help that immigrants get, that are not Hispanic, Asian, or Black. In addition, I believe that affirmative action only creates an even further color barrier between races. Instead of looking at the present inequality, I think the shift of focus needs to occur and the target needs to be what is in the pipeline at the moment. I believe that our society is turning less and less racist as each generation matures. This will close the racial gap, and inequality gap, because if we fundamentally change the thoughts that races are equal, then there is no racism involved in the hiring of one candidate over another. It would simply be the skills that get you into the job. However, I do believe that race does a small role in the hiring process. Having the same skin color as someone can let you “connect” more with someone because you are more alike in one aspect and they can emphasize better. But this applies to both black and white people, not just one race.

Giving aid to Haiti has usually always been a topic that is discussed at length. In aspect of the question asked in the video, I honestly believe the question to be bad (not bad in a sense, but more to that there is not really a clear answer). If the United States where to pull out of Haiti there would be no more relief programs for them, and they would most likely suffer for a longer period of time that they would otherwise. The people that are helping in Haiti from the United States are doing so in order to help and teach the population of Haiti, to make it a better place to live once everything is built up again. However, if the United States where to stay there and invest even more money, that knocks away the sustainability of what people in Haiti are looking for. The key, I believe, is a sustainable balance between the two extremes. The United States does send people to Haiti, but they also send them all over the world in organizations such as the Peace Corps, which I am very interested in joining, and I am soon sending out my applications. But the Peace Corps focuses on sustainable growth for countries such as Haiti, because simple giving food, or giving money will help the population only temporarily. To shed light upon this, imagine this scenario: you give money to help a hospital in Haiti, and they are able to give food to everyone at the hospital for a week. Great, everyone has good food for a week, but what happens after that week is over. That is what many people fail to realize, once the aid has run out, once the United States leaves, there is no aid left. So this is where sustainability comes in, imagine, if instead of sending that same hospital money, the United States taught the farmer running a part of the hospital how to make rice in a really effective and cheap manner. This is what I refer to as sustainable, the ability to provide for future generations. Giving money may help in the short run, but I believe that in order to help Haiti, the money in the short run will not help, it is long run initiatives that will really help the country. That is one thing that struck me deeply when I heard a lecture given by a Peace Corps member, she talked about how a man in Africa still remembers the deep impact a Peace Corps had nearly 30 years. The member taught the African man how to cut grain, and he still uses the method today. A sustainable way of teaching in the developing areas of the world.

I think that people use whiting creams for a simple reason: they are taught that one race is more “beautiful” from a very young age. People have thought that lighter skin makes one more beautiful, yet they don’t realize that beauty is simply in the eye of the beholder. People in Africa have been playing with Barbie’s for example. A Barbie doll is supposed to be a symbol of what stands for beauty. When a baby only has white dolls available, it becomes engrained in everyone’s mind that the lighter ones skin is the more beautiful one looks, whether it is actually true or not. I do find it ironic and funny that darker people want to look whiter, and whiter people want to look darker. I think something in our systems is always unsatisfied with how we look. Another reason may tie back to older times. As another student pointed out, back in the day (a long time ago) being white meant having power. I think that this is still somehow in effect. The same rule applies for being overweight. Back in the day being overweight was actually considered to be a sign of beauty and wealth. Because one was overweight, the assumption was that the person had to have a lot of food to eat. This was, of course, not necessarily true, one could be overweight without eating a lot of food. Everyone has their own standards in each different country. I didn’t think that it was just to say that Asians want to use the cream to make they look whiter. It is the same in South American culture. I have a few Mexican friends, and they don’t think that white girls are particularly good looking. But, that being said, they do however find a Hispanic girl that is whiter than normal very attractive. That is just a cultural difference. The same applied to things like breast implants. Many people in America get these done, that is because it is seen to be “more attractive” to have larger breasts, however, some cultures do not. This happens all over the world, different cultures value different signs of beauty. The white perspective would be a white male might find an exotic and tan female more attractive than one that has whiter skin. To other cultures this white skin is exotic, the same as tan is exotic to the white male. Overall however, I do think that any of these beauty products should not be in stores or anywhere for that matter. The same goes for tanning creams. People shouldn’t be able to alter who they are and how they are born, they should be able to embrace that and come to peace with how they naturally look.

I believe that there is negativity towards Muslims for one reason: risk aversion. I don’t think the people of America would “hate” Muslims just because of what they believe in. I think the American people are on their guard because of the terrorist attacks. So many people died during 9-11 that the simple association through religion to these terrorist groups associates one with scrutiny. To add to the point, I don’t think that it’s just Muslims that are targeted. It’s people that are wearing the headscarves, and that have the “middle eastern” look about them. These types of people would be “randomly searched” at airports for example, but that’s not because they’re being racist, it’s simply a manner of creating the least amount of risk for the people that go aboard the plane. Taking an extra 10 min to double check someone that has the looks of the terrorist groups (the only reason I say that they have the looks of a terrorist group is because most of the terrorist associated with the bombings are froma certain area in the middle east), will not harm that person at all. In fact, it just makes the whole airplane safer. We had a discussion in our group about whether or not this was being racist through profiling, but several group members saw my points. If there are only a certain amount of terrorists, and we know that most of them look a certain way, and then when you double check someone that looks like they do, it is only natural and a risk aversion tactic. 10 minutes is not the same as losing the life’s of 400 or more people. I don’t think that it’s right to randomly detain people either. For example in our group discussion we talked about how some families were sent to prison and tortured because they are simply suspected of having Intel on the terrorist organizations. While this is wrong, I also feel that information was withheld from the public. The I feel that the American government wouldn’t just randomly choose someone that they didn’t suspect of having a large amount of information and torture them without knowing their involvement. Getting back to the main point however, I don’t think that Muslims are hated at all in the United States. Of course there are some people that will hate anything different, such as white elitists. But they do not just target Muslims, they target anyone.

There are several points in the lecture when I would be thinking to myself that I completely disagree with what Sam had to say. I do think that his lecture allow you to think and I believe that if you listen to them with an open mind that you will start to question things that you would normally never think about. But on the controversial topic of slavery, I do believe that the United States should give countries the space to implement their own laws. The United States used slavery to gain a foothold in the world as we know it today, and countries that are doing that exact same thing know what they are doing. I believe that it shouldn’t be up to the United States, or any developed nation for that matter, so decide how to deal with slavery. Take a look at our industrial era; compare that with Britain’s industrial era. Both of the eras were very similar. They had child labor, treating workers horribly, and just overall horrible working conditions with little to no compensation. This exact same thing is happening all over the world now. This doesn’t mean that the world is inhumane or wrong; it just means that the world is now taking the steps that the United States had taken a long time ago. The easiest way to conceptually think of it is to say that the developing countries are playing “catch up”. Of course what they are doing is seen as wrong, but it may as well be a necessary, step to decide that it is wrong. If the country never undergoes this key step in the process then they will never have consciously made the decision that this type of labor is not the way that they want their country to be run. But in addition, I feel that the general talk of sweatshops was taken wrong. There is a general misconception in the United States that in reinforced only by the media. The other side of the sweatshop world is never actually spoken about. There are people that love sweatshops in other countries as well. In my International Business 301 class we talked about a sweatshop in South America. The lady that worked at the sweatshop said that it saved their community. The people there had no money, nothing. A sweatshop, as grueling as it seems to us, was actually a huge opportunity for their community to make money. The otherwise homeless people of the town, could now afford food and shelter, which they could not before. The lady even went as far as to yell at Americans that are protesting sweatshops, claiming that they know nothing about how much sweatshops actually help communities around the world. This is just another perspective to view sweatshops.

I would not mind joining the military. I have huge respect for anyone that does decide to join the armed forces. In fact, I was even contemplating joining them myself, albeit for different reasons than for most. I would have joined them to take advantage of the GI bill, which would have paid for all of my college tuition. I was seriously contemplating this before college because my father didn’t want to pay for my tuition and the only way I would be able to go to college would be with assistance in some manner. I thought the armed forces would prepare me well for life after college and the funding would help me to go to college. However, the way that things ended up playing is that my father did get a new job, and was able to pay for my tuition. I don’t understand why some people in class are totally against joining the military. It is not as if the military will guarantee that you will see action or that you will even be anyway near action. The fact that you “lose” power and have to follow orders is an argument that I simply cannot comprehend. Think; ask yourself, what are you doing now? Aren’t you following the orders of someone? Even the CEO of a company has to follow orders to some extent. And we all need to follow the law. Because you need to abide by school rules and are taught what a school sees fit, does that mean you won’t be attending school? No, it means that you will learn what they want you to learn. Of course you can do your own research on the side, and in comparison, if you find something immoral or wrong with the military branch that you are in, you can always switch to a more technical job. Serving in the military does not mean that you will always be holding a gun or a trigger of some sort. I think the people that do join the military are very brave and should deserve our respect, not because they are putting their lives on the line for us. But because the simple fact that they joined, for any reason, shows strength, and knowledge of what direction you want to go in life. Joining the military opens many doors to life if you take the proper avenue. But it’s that way throughout life in general. If you go to college to get a degree, you can either get a lot out of the money that you used to pay, or you can simply sit back and fail every single class without retaining any information. In other words, methods get you into college, but its what you do in college that determines the avenues that will be open to you