"Middle Class"

"I grew up very poor and so did my husband.  We're not rich but we are comfortable and we are middle class and our son is better off than we are." - Wanda Brown

Do me a favor real quick.  Go outisde and ask a random person what social class they're in.  Seriously, I dare you.  No don't worry, I'll wait.

Back so soon?  What did they say?  I thought so.

The vast majority of Americans would have answered that question with "middle class."  However, only 35% of the U.S. population is really middle class.  How can that be?

Simply put, we are completely blind to the distribution of wealth in our nation.  The only thing we see is our individual life and our individual economic status.  Rich people think everyone else is rich.  Poor people think everyone else is poor.  Only a few people really have it right.

Here's a little graph of the ugly truth:

As you may or may not be able to see, the gray line represents the top 1% of our nation, and the red line represents the bottom 80%.  And as you may or may not be able to see, the gap between the two lines has widened significantly throughout the past 30 years.

This week in Sociology we have been watching a video about the social class system in America, and how big a difference there is between the highest of the high and the lowest of the low.  As entertaining as the video is, the facts shown by it brilliantly reflect exactly what is being shown in the graph above.

However, if you ask me, the wealth gap really isn't something with which we need to be too concerned right now.  What's truly important is the promise America made to us at Her birth, and whether or not that promise is being fulfilled.  The Constitution promises us three unalienable rights:  life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Of all those three, I do believe that the pursuit of happiness is by far the most important.  In itself, it encompasses the other two, as well as sums up the entire goal of the U.S.'s capitalistic government.  No matter what sex, race, class, or location into which you were born, the United States promises that you have just as good a chance of making it as anyone else.  Wrong.

Take applying to college as an example.  Admissions take a variety of factors into account:  your citizenship, where you live, your grades, your standardized test scores, your essays, your ethnicity, etc.  Is this really fair?  Should colleges really let minorities get in before whites simply because they're minorities?  The idea of this affirmative action plan is really one of very clear motive, and with it I agree completely.  As social mobility is becoming increasingly more difficult, the United States wants to make sure those with racial disadvantages don't suffer simply because of where they live.

Growing up in poverty most likely means going to a school without sufficient resources, such as textbooks, computers, good-quality teachers, standardized test prep, etc.  Therefore, not only will those in wealthier neighborhoods be able to better afford the tuition, but they will most likely also have better grades and test scores.  This then leads to what universities have been accustomed to for so long:  Rich white kids at Yale; poor black kids at community college (or no college at all).

In that sense, the affirmative action plan is a very good idea.  However, there are always exceptions.

Just this past weekend I was talking to my friend Ina about applying to college.  Ina lives in the same wealthy school district as me, and although my house is bigger (we have 6 kids and they only have 2), her family is definitely better-off financially.  She and her younger sister are both exceptionally intelligent; Ina has a GPA above a 4.0.  She is taking 2 different test prep courses and has already taken the ACT more than once, receiving outstanding scores.  Frankly, Ina is destined to get into an awesome school.  To make matters worse, Ina's mom is Norwegian and her dad is Nicaraguan, so she can legally put 'Hispanic' as her race when taking tests and filling out applications.  When addressing this, she simply said, "I don't agree with it, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to take advantage of it!"  I mean come on, who wouldn't?!  However, because of this affirmative action, she will more than likely get into a better school than I do, even though I too have above a 4.0 GPA and am taking the same ACT prep course with her.  In this case, I am a little ticked off with the system.

As always, things are fine as long as they don't affect me.  So now, my opinion is that this affirmative action plan needs to be fixed ASAP so that these injustices can be put to rest.  I really want to get into a good college!  :)

The Hidden Problem of Human Trafficking in the United States

Prostitution is one of the U.S.'s many human trafficking operations that are still in effect today

In 1808, the United States outlawed international slave trade.  In 1863, President Lincoln gave the Emancipation Proclamation which freed all slaves in the Union.  In 1865, the Thirteenth Amendment was added to the Constitution and officially abolished slavery.

That was almost 150 years ago.  Yet for some reason, we still don't seem to get it.  The United States still continues to hold markets in human trafficking, which is, in some ways, almost identical to slavery.

But what exactly is human trafficking?  The name really doesn't provide much explanation if you ask me.  Human trafficking is defined by Wikipedia as the illegal trade of human beings for the purposes of reproductive slavery, commercial sexual exploitation, forced labor, or a modern-day form of slavery.

Bam.  There you have it folks, the United States is nothing but one big fat hypocrite.

However, much to my dismay, we can't say that just yet.  Turns out the U.S. has done a lot to support antitrafficking efforts throughout the world.  In 1904, the International Agreement for the Suppression of the White Slave Traffic was created, although very few countries signed it.  Since then, the U.S. has passed many an Act to prevent the continuation of prostitution, forced labor, and other unspeakable horrors.

All of these horrors are, obviously, horrendous.  But if you ask me, the one that poses the biggest problem is prostitution.  You see them everywhere.  Creeping around among the hidden scandals of Governors and Senators.  Downtown at night there they are standing on the corners.  Last month my friend and I were driving through a town about 45 minutes away, and saw prostitutes just standing outside the local movie theater.  They're everywhere.

Many may argue against my claim:  So what if it's an immoral operation?  It's a way for struggling people to make money.  What's so bad about that?

What's bad about it is that it's bad.  It's immoral.  It's disgusting.  It's exactly what we tried to do years ago in freeing the slaves and abolishing slavery.  Although prostitutes don't just work for free, they still are entering a trade in which they are objectified and potentially humiliated.  It's a scummy thing, and it should be ended ASAP.

What I got out of our discussions in Sociology this week is this:  Not all slaves work without pay.  Sometimes, just the mere concept of being objectified and bought is enough to abolish the trade entirely.

Appalachia

The farm house in which we stayed during my week-long mission trip to Appalachia

Two summers ago, I went on a mission trip with a group of kids from my church.  One hot August morning,all 30 of us piled into three vans and drove 6 hours from our church in Barrington to Vanceburg, Kentucky.  The air conditioning in our red van (nicknamed "the Radish") was broken, so the drive felt like an eternity.

The mission trip is commonly known throughout our parish as "Appalachia", a week-long trip during which we would be doing service for the people living in impoverished Northeastern Kentucky. We had expected to do different construction projects, volunteer at food and clothing pantries, maybe mow a lawn or two, but what we witnessed in the course of the following week was nothing like we had expected. Growing up in Barrington is pretty much everyone's dream. The average household income of Barrington residents is huge compared to what most people in America make. Almost all the kids graduate from a fantastic high school and eventually go on to complete four or more years in a good college. Many a famous person has emerged from Barrington (ever heard of the band The Academy Is? How about rapper Kid Slim?) However, the sad part is that most everyone living in Barrington takes it all for granted. We expect the new iPhone for Christmas because, well, we want it. Budgets are practically nonexistent. For the most part, Barrington teenagers are spoiled beyond belief.

So when we went to Vanceburg, we were shocked to say the least. We had known these people were poor, but we didn't expect them to be this poor! To make matters worse, Lewis County had been hit with a devastating flood just weeks earlier, and a big part of the town was in ruins.  When we were told that Lewis County was one of the more relatively lucrative counties in the Appalachian region, we were in disbelief.

Coincidentally, today in class we watched an ABC film about Appalachia (except they pronounced it Appalatcha instead of Appalaysha, which did confuse me for a bit).  They showed people living in trailers, boarded up shacks, even pickup trucks.  To see the level of poverty in which these people were living brought tears to my eyes.  How could so many people in Barrington be living like they are, when there are people only 6 hours away living like this?  I felt like a terrible person.

However, after the film started looking into the lives of some of the residents of Appalachia, my sympathy level dropped a little bit.  So many people in that town were alcoholics, prescription drug addicts, and yes even incestuals.  The majority hadn't even graduated from high school.  Parents would spend their money on Oxycontin and Mountain Dew rather than a dinner for their children.  When it became hard for a family of 6 to put food on the table, one of the 17-year old girls would go and accidentally get pregnant and thus conceive another mouth to feed.  Instead of leaving their houses in Appalachia and seeking employment in the city, they would stay because Appalachia is "their home".  You'd think that by now people would know better, right?

Although I knew these stories were real, I still couldn't help but feel a twinge of upset in my heart when hearing how these people were throwing their lives away.  Yes, many people live in poverty simply because of horrible life choices.  Yes, many parents are young and irresponsible.  However, these statistics could not compete with the personal experiences I had during August of 2010.  The people I met were not drug dealers, the couples I met were not half-siblings, and many people had earned their high school diplomas.  Granted, these people were in a wealthier region than that shown in the ABC film, but I knew from talking to these people and hearing their stories that they were working hard to try and provide a good life for themselves and their families.

What I took away from all of this is that some people are born into poverty so extreme that it is nearly impossible to bring themselves out of it.  No matter how hard they try in school, no matter how naturally gifted they are, sometimes maximum effort just won't cut it.  As sad as this is to accept, it's the truth.  Life has always been this way:  we've heard the old saying the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.  If you have money you want to donate, then by all means donate it!  However, most 99th-percentile people don't donate and won't ever donate, so I don't expect our nation's economic stance to change anytime soon.  The majority of the money going around will always belong to the top few percent, and the poor will be pretty much left for the way they are.

It's sad to think that this could happen in the United States, where all men are created equal and everyone deserves the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  It is in my personal opinion when I say the President who can come along and justly change our massive wealth gap will be the best one we'll ever see.

This Week's Project: Highlights and Lowlights of Disney Analysis Presentations

This week and last week in class, Mrs. Castelli used us as guinea pigs for a new assignment that she just recently came up with because of a conversation we had in class about Disney.  We were to make a presentation (in Powerpoint, Prezi, etc.) analyzing the sociological messages conveyed in Disney's classic movies.  Many groups chose to criticize the messages about gender that the films sent us.  For example:  the skinny waists of Sleeping Beauty's Aurora, the dim wit of Ariel, the unrealistically huge biceps of Hercules.  However, as more and more groups gave their 10-15 minute presentatinos INCLUDING CLIPS, we pretty much got the message and were ready to move on.  One group focused not only on gender stereotypes but on Tarzan and its false representation of human socialization.  As refreshing as that was, I still was extremely bored out of my mind at the majority of the presentations (two groups decided to do Hercules and showed the exact same things).

However, aside from the Tarzan group, the real stars of the project were, in my opinion, Kaitlin and Nicole.  They took a super creative spin on the project by comparing two movies:  Sleeping Beauty and Anastasia.  They did look at the gender stereotypes exhibited in the movie, but the major point of their presentation was to draw attention to the changes made throughout the years.  They saw how, in the late 1950s, Sleeping Beauty was made as the story of a helpless girl relying solely on beauty and singing (a soprano, nonetheless), who finds a man and only sings songs about her prince.  Anastasia (1997), on the other hand, features a heroine rather than a hero (In Sleeping Beauty, Aurora just slept through the whole battle scene); she herself defeated Rasputin, and although she did find a romantic interest in Dimitri,  the songs she sings in an alto voice are about finding herself and establishing her own identity.  In my opinion, this is much better than simply being boy-crazy.

That then got me thinking:  What other movies show the difference betwen the more early times of the twentieth century and the modern values held today?  Mulan certainly put a spin on the classic tales of damsels in distress and huge muscular heroes.  Mulan herself became the hero of China by proving to be just as strong, disciplined, and capable as a man.  Not only that, but she did the whole thing for her family (remember how Ariel ran away from her father, the "ugly stepsisters" in Cinderella, stepmothers in Cinderella and Snow White), which certainly was a much-needed aspect of Disney movies.

Furthermore, I suggest this to my teacher:  Have the project be a timeline or comparison between children's films (not necessarily Disney), and see whether your future students believe society has improved or gotten worse.  After all, there's no real answer to that question, is there?

Male vs. Female, Men vs. Women: It's Not All Black and White

Line 1:  Handsome, Strong, Brave, Buff, Football, Basketball, Jerseys, Jockstraps, Blue.

Line 2:  Pretty, Graceful, Spunky, Hot, Dancing, Cheerleading, Makeup, Bras, Pink.

What did you think of when you read the first line?  How about the second?  Hopefully, your respective answers are something like guys and girls, men and women, or male and female.

It's easy to tell the sex of a person.  Anatomically speaking, males and females are different in some pretty obvious ways.  However, gender isn't always so easily defined.

Traditionally speaking, males (those born with a penis) have the minds of men, and are pretty much summed up using the words in Line 1.  Traditionally speaking, females (those born with a vagina) have the minds of women, and are likewise described using the words in Line 2.

However, as it is with all things in the modern world, we aren't always speaking traditionally now, are we?

Sometimes, the match-up of one's sex and gender isn't male-man or female-woman.  These people are the ones who may eventually become homosexuals, transvestites, or even transgender.  In the article I read this week, Gauging Gender by Stephen T. Asma (of The Chronicle Review), gender is described not as something set in stone; but as a concept created by the evolution of human society.  In other words, we came up with the categorization of the words in Lines 1 and 2 simply because of the way things happened in our society. 

In cultures outside the U.S., there are more extant genders other than man and woman.  In fact, there are at least 23.  We learned about one of these in class this week; fa'afafine are a Samoan third gender and are basically men who were raised to carry a woman's role in society.  These fa'afafine are not considered men, and relations between a male and a fa'afafine are not considered homosexual.  Fa'afafine keep house and raise children.  Here's a picture of one, just for a visual:

*Don't ask me why she's wearing boxing gloves; I don't know.  Whatever.  It's irrelevant.

These fa'afafine are culturally accepted in Samoan society and are actually a pretty innovative and smart idea. If a family gives birth to two boys, they may decide they want a girl to take care of them in their old age, so they decide to raise one of their boys as a fa'afafine.  They treat him like a girl and teach him how to do chores around the house just like his mother.  Because of his natural male strength, however, it is arguable that he is even better at keeping house and doing chores than a typical woman would be.

The Samoan fa'afafine are proof that gender bending is something that can and has been done.  Gender isn't set in stone, and although some natural factors do have an impact on our perception of males and females (males being naturally bigger and stronger, and therefore prone to more aggressive behavior; women being the childbearers and nurturers, and therefore having a more gentle nature), our ideas of how each sex should look, act, speak, and behave is simply something conjured from our own imaginations.

A good friend of mine has a father who recently came out of the closet as a homosexual.  He has undergone some serious and painful medical procedures and injections to turn him into a female.  Although this has obviously been a very difficult thing to handle for my friend and her family, she's doing a good job of accepting her father and his situation simply by acknowledging the point discussed by my class this week as well as the article I read yesterday.  Sometimes a person's sex doesn't match up exactly with how society wants their corresponding gender to be.  If my friend's father had lived in Samoa, his decision to change his sex would have been way more accepted than it is here in the United States, and it probably would have been a lot easier on him (or her...?) than it has been.

Bottom line is, if a male acts "prissy" rather than "manly", or if a female acts "dykish" rather than "girly," don't judge them for it; these perceptions of gender are only illusions made up by people as the years went on.  It isn't a sin to not have a traditional correlation between sex and gender, and those who persecute people who fall into the "confused" category really need to think before they speak.

Do Our Sociodemographic Positions Influence The Way We View Genetics?

Blue-eyed babies are adorable:  I think this is something most of us can agree on.  However, anyone who passed 9th grade science knows that there aren't a whole lot of blue-eyed babies around.  Blue eyes are a recessive trait and are usually overpowered by the dominant brown eye gene (as depicted by the punnett square below).

[Blue eye gene is b; Brown eye gene is B]

Genes work like this, and not only with eye color.  Biological studies prove that pretty much every natural anatomical feature on an individual is there because of their inherited genetics.  However, the question still remains:  does the same go for non-anatomical characteristics?

In other words, are our personalities and abilities controlled by our inherited genetic code?  Would the same punnett square depicted above work if (for example) patience was B and a short temper was b?  An article I read this week for class explains how and why different people hold different opinions on this issue.

The article was written by Sara Shostak of Brandeis University, Jeremy Freese of Northwestern University, Bruce G. Link, and Jo C. Phelan (both of whom are from Columbia University), and says that research has proved the following hypothesis:

American citizens of a more conservative political position and/or an upper- to middle- class status tend to believe genes are the main cause of one's character and personality.  Those of a more liberal political position and/or a lower- to middle- class status tend to believe the contrary:  that one's personality and character is shaped by his or her experiences in life and among society.

When I first read this article, I was dumbfounded.  How could someone find a correlation between these two things?!  I mean, they're totally unrelated, aren't they?

After a little thinking, however, a light bulb went off in my head.

Those of a liberal democratic political position are strong pushers of the notion that "all men are created equal"...hence the tendency to favor taxing the rich and giving to the poor.  Those of a conservative republican political position, however, favor the idea of a capitalistic society as well as that of a "self-made man."

Therefore, if liberals believe all men are created equal, wouldn't this mindset lead to the similar assumption that all babies are born equal and genes have little to do with their natural personalities?  And wouldn't higher-class conservatives have reason to believe themselves to be more naturally advantaged because of a likely genetic history of a good work ethic, an aptitude for learning, and a strong sense of determination that so led to their current state of economic success and high-class social status?

In class, we're learning about how society may or may not shape who we are.  George Herbert Mead's hypothesis of a Social Construction of Self suggests that our personalities and characters are largely influenced by the world in which we live.  Charles Horton Cooley, however, believes in a Looking-Glass Self and thinks that one's view of himself is caused by what he thinks others think of him (...you got that?)  Both these men would most likely be on the side of the liberals when it comes to this argument.  Neither one brings up the idea that genes are why we are who we are (hence why they're sociologists and not geneticists).

As for me, I have to say I agree with the conservative viewpoint.  I have seen in myself many a character trait like one or both of my parents.  I like the same kind of music as my dad and the same foods as my mom, I communicate the same way as my father (my mom's a whole different story), and the same goes for all four of my biological siblings.  Since I'm only 16 and don't really have a fully-developed political position, this is just what I've concluded through personal experience alone.  Therefore, my opinion isn't really one of great contribution to my conclusion above about the article I read.

Still, it's my opinion and I think I'm right.  :)

"Don't Put Your Elbows on the Table!" - Examining A Questionable American Folkway

"Elbows off the table!"

These dreadful words have been spat at me almost every evening for approximately 16 years.  Doing the math, that's almost SIX THOUSAND TIMES that I've heard the command.  And even still, I have no idea why I must keep my elbows off the table.  Sure, I've probably asked a few times.  But the answer I always received never went deeper than "because it's bad manners" or "because I said so".

After doing some research on the topic, I found out the REAL reason why you should keep your arm-knees off of your eating surface at all times.  Apparently, back in the olden days, banquet tables were not as sturdy as they are today, and so if someone put their elbows on the table and leant too heavily, the table could collapse.  And so, people who committed such a dangerous crime were sanctioned in a very negative way.  Also, common sense tells us that elbows can easily knock over drinks, so I guess there's Reason #2.

However, the question I still have is WHY ON EARTH CAN'T I PUT MY ELBOW ON THE TABLE?!  Being a dedicated student and athlete, dinnertime is probably the point during my day when I am most likely to drop dead of exhaustion.  When sitting at the table eating dinner, my neck often feels it needs a break from having to hold up my big brain all the time.  And so I will casually rest my elbow on the table, place my beautiful face in my upward-faced palm, and feel such comfort, relaxation, and happiness as I let gravity do all the work.  I can hardly describe the euphoria.

And then it comes.  The death stare.  Either from my mother or father (more often than not my father).  A look of complete disapproval.  Eyebrows lowered, bottom eyelids slightly raised, jaw clenched ever so slightly. 

"Elbows off the table!"

Why does he care so much anyway?!  Our table is sturdy enough to withstand the puny force of my one elbow.  In fact, everyone in my family could have their elbows up if they so desired.  And as for knocking things over, the only thing within range of my elbow is my half-glass of milk, and to be honest that's a chance I'm willing to take.

Then it hits me.  Back some thirty years ago, my dad was in the exact same spot I'm in; my grandfather at the head of the table.  The exact same scenario most likely occurred many a time with my father, and so he believes he must do the same for his children.  Such a cultural folkway is in existence solely by sheer familial pass-it-down ways.  My father was brought up to believe an elbow-free table is a happy table, and my guess is that my grandfather learned it from his father and so on.

So if we can't blame it on my father, and we can't blame it on his father, who can we blame it on?  The answer is simple:  America.

Leave it to America to keep such a stupid, inconvenient folkway alive after so long.  In class this past week, we've been talking about culture and learning how each different culture carries a different set of values, morals and folkways.  Some made sense at one point (doing "cheers" at dinner http://www.snopes.com/food/rituals/clink.asp, shaking hands when meeting someone http://disciplinedcreativity.blogspot.com/2009/02/why-do-we-shake-hands-with-people.html, etc.) but should now be considered obsolete, and do not provide themselves as anything more than a simple nuisance to tired people (cough cough no elbows on the table cough cough).

Personally I'm against it completely, and I will pass around a petition tomorrow during class that will thus allow any and all elbows to roam freely to whatever dining surface they so desire whenever they so desire.  Sign it if you agree.