“The crimes targeted in the bill are particularly pernicious crimes that affect more than just their victims and their victim’s families. They inspire fear in those who have no connection to the victim other than a shared characteristic such as race or sexual orientation” (Statement of Sen. Patrick Leahy).
The article we were assigned was all about hate crime legislation with arguments both for and against the passing of such bills. Personally, I applauded Senator Leahy’s statement on The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crime Prevention Act of 2007. The quote above is such a powerful statement, and is why I completely agree with the passing of this bill. Hate crimes do no only affect the victim, but anyone with shared characteristics to said victim. When a gay man or a black man or a Middle Eastern man is killed or beaten because of nothing but their race or sexual orientation it instills fear in anyone who shares those characteristics. Hate motivated crime should be punished further than general violent crimes, if only to try and stop them by setting an example.
What really appalled me was the “gay conservative” and others who opposed hate crime legislation. Although I can see this view I cannot understand supporting it. First, many people are worried that the passing of this bill is a violation of our Bill of Rights, such as our first amendment freedom of speech. This infuriates me. Hate crime legislation is working to erase hate, and I really don’t see how anyone can oppose it, especially when referring to their rights as a citizen. Don’t all minorities and victims or hate crimes have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Not likely to happen when they are being victimized. Secondly, many people, the conservative in particular, think that making violent crimes worse when they are hate crimes will only create more groups and more gaps in our community. I can understand this view as well, but I don’t agree with it. I really believe that hate crime legislation needs to pass in order for hate crimes to be eliminated; ignoring the problem won’t change anything. I did like how this article had both viewpoints. It made the arguments more valid, and it made me feel more secure in my opinion.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Monday, November 12, 2007
Observation Journal #5
I am currently enrolled in legacy of world civ and in that class we recently watched a film entitled "Reel Bad Arabs". The movie was about how Arabs and Muslims are constantly portrayed in Hollywood films as villains. The film went through countless examples of films that make Arabs either terrorists whose only purpose is to kill and maim, or as comic relief where they play the ignorant Arab, whose only purpose is to make mistakes. In either case the films put Arabs and Muslims in a bad light. Even the Disney movie Aladin was used as an example, where in the opening scene they refer to their land as "barbaric, but hey it's home". We are even discussing this film with other colleges around the world, on a blog network similar to this one.
This film is really significant because it proves that many people today really only associate Muslims and Arabs with terrorism, and our media is only making that issue worse. It is deffinatlely a good sign that a film like this was made to make it known to everyone that there is an issue with racism against Arabs, and it is not ok. This phenomenon is not recent however. there were films from the 40's and 50s as well that were blatanty racist toward Muslims and Arabs. I just really hope that a film like this will have some impact on others, the same way it impacted me, and that eventually people will not associate arabs with terrorism. Unfortunately i think we may be a long way off, especially becuase of 9/11, I think more poeple than ever hold hostilities toward people who are middle eastern.
This film is really significant because it proves that many people today really only associate Muslims and Arabs with terrorism, and our media is only making that issue worse. It is deffinatlely a good sign that a film like this was made to make it known to everyone that there is an issue with racism against Arabs, and it is not ok. This phenomenon is not recent however. there were films from the 40's and 50s as well that were blatanty racist toward Muslims and Arabs. I just really hope that a film like this will have some impact on others, the same way it impacted me, and that eventually people will not associate arabs with terrorism. Unfortunately i think we may be a long way off, especially becuase of 9/11, I think more poeple than ever hold hostilities toward people who are middle eastern.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Reading Reflection Nine
“Today’s American families bear little resemblance to the cultural ideal that existed just a generation ago.” (Newman 322)
The section that caught my attention in chapter nine was the section titled “The Futures of Gender and the Sexual Dichotomy”. This section examined what will happen in regards to the future and how gender roles that have been the norm for so long are becoming more and more obsolete and it is possible that in the future men and women will share domestic responsibilities and both parents will probably work as well. It went further to explain that both parents splitting household duties, which includes child rearing is beneficial to the child. As good as these changes sound, Newman finishes the section by saying that even with all of these liberating possibilities discrimination on the basis of gender is unlikely to disappear completely. He finishes by saying that it is likely that these changes in the family will not completely affect changes in the workplace and employers are more likely to choose employees who are work oriented over workers who are more family-oriented.
I was glad to see that a sociologist like Newman feels that the sexist family dynamic is changing for the better. I have always felt it was unfair that nowadays women are expected to work and take care of the family, while male roles have changed very little. I agree with him as well when he says that men of my generation are more ready to take on family life and split domestic duties then men of past generations. I wish he had included the future of other cultures gender roles, because I am curious how they may be changing for cultures that are even more male dominant than ours. I hope to see in the future evidence of what Newman says. I would really like to see that when my generation gets married and starts family that the duties and responsibilities are more evenly dispersed. I know I don’t want to have to take care of my kids and work without any help from my husband.
The section that caught my attention in chapter nine was the section titled “The Futures of Gender and the Sexual Dichotomy”. This section examined what will happen in regards to the future and how gender roles that have been the norm for so long are becoming more and more obsolete and it is possible that in the future men and women will share domestic responsibilities and both parents will probably work as well. It went further to explain that both parents splitting household duties, which includes child rearing is beneficial to the child. As good as these changes sound, Newman finishes the section by saying that even with all of these liberating possibilities discrimination on the basis of gender is unlikely to disappear completely. He finishes by saying that it is likely that these changes in the family will not completely affect changes in the workplace and employers are more likely to choose employees who are work oriented over workers who are more family-oriented.
I was glad to see that a sociologist like Newman feels that the sexist family dynamic is changing for the better. I have always felt it was unfair that nowadays women are expected to work and take care of the family, while male roles have changed very little. I agree with him as well when he says that men of my generation are more ready to take on family life and split domestic duties then men of past generations. I wish he had included the future of other cultures gender roles, because I am curious how they may be changing for cultures that are even more male dominant than ours. I hope to see in the future evidence of what Newman says. I would really like to see that when my generation gets married and starts family that the duties and responsibilities are more evenly dispersed. I know I don’t want to have to take care of my kids and work without any help from my husband.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Reading Reflection Eight
“With the exception of fashion modeling and prostitution, men in traditionally female occupations traditionally out earn women.” (Newman 302)
This chapter concerned inequalities in economics and work, but the section that caught my interest was the part on gender and the workplace, specifically gender discrimination in the workplace. It is no secret that for as long as women have been working men have been making more money. However I didn’t realize the extent to which this happened. First off, the jobs that are primarily assumed to be women’s jobs, such as teaching, nursing, etc. are all low paying jobs. It is well known that teachers do not make a very significant salary, although I could not tell you why, considering teaching is one of the most important professions in America. It makes me furious when I compare a teacher’s measly salary to that of a professional athlete, who makes millions for playing a game. And wouldn’t you know that professional athletics is a men’s field?
Although all of these inequalities are completely unfair, I was somewhat aware of them. I have heard the term class ceiling before, and I know that women make roughly 25% less than men for the same jobs. However, I was outraged to hear that even in primarily female occupations, such as receptionists and librarians; men still make more money, and are more highly valued than women. It makes me furious to hear that in law firms women are undervalued even with the same level of education and seniority, especially because I want to go into that field. How does it make sense that simply because I am female I deserve less credit and money even with just as much work as a man? Are genitals that important to a law firm?
I really don’t understand how this still occurs even with the percentages of women in the workforce and the amount of gender discrimination law suits that go on today. Why does it still happen? Why are men so much more valued than women? I have always heard that it is because women take maternity leave, and can’t work too much because of their kids. I think it is time that we change the family dynamic in order to make it more equal for women. Although men cannot give birth, Newman writes that women still do twice as much housework as men, even when they work longer hours then men. We need to un-condition America to think that a woman’s place is at home, when so many of us plan to join the workforce.
This chapter concerned inequalities in economics and work, but the section that caught my interest was the part on gender and the workplace, specifically gender discrimination in the workplace. It is no secret that for as long as women have been working men have been making more money. However I didn’t realize the extent to which this happened. First off, the jobs that are primarily assumed to be women’s jobs, such as teaching, nursing, etc. are all low paying jobs. It is well known that teachers do not make a very significant salary, although I could not tell you why, considering teaching is one of the most important professions in America. It makes me furious when I compare a teacher’s measly salary to that of a professional athlete, who makes millions for playing a game. And wouldn’t you know that professional athletics is a men’s field?
Although all of these inequalities are completely unfair, I was somewhat aware of them. I have heard the term class ceiling before, and I know that women make roughly 25% less than men for the same jobs. However, I was outraged to hear that even in primarily female occupations, such as receptionists and librarians; men still make more money, and are more highly valued than women. It makes me furious to hear that in law firms women are undervalued even with the same level of education and seniority, especially because I want to go into that field. How does it make sense that simply because I am female I deserve less credit and money even with just as much work as a man? Are genitals that important to a law firm?
I really don’t understand how this still occurs even with the percentages of women in the workforce and the amount of gender discrimination law suits that go on today. Why does it still happen? Why are men so much more valued than women? I have always heard that it is because women take maternity leave, and can’t work too much because of their kids. I think it is time that we change the family dynamic in order to make it more equal for women. Although men cannot give birth, Newman writes that women still do twice as much housework as men, even when they work longer hours then men. We need to un-condition America to think that a woman’s place is at home, when so many of us plan to join the workforce.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Observation Journal #4
I was flipping through the channels the other night, watching TV, when I stopped on the show “Mind of Mencia”. The show stars Carlos Mencia and he does skits and stand up comedy and things like that. People seem to think he’s pretty funny, but I really don’t understand his appeal. First of all, all his material is made up of racist and sexist jokes. Carlos Mencia is a Mexican American, but since he makes fun of Mexicans in his comedy he seems to think that it is ok to make fun of every other group, including whites, blacks, gays, lesbians, Italians, Asians, and more. He even makes fun of people who are mentally retarded.
I don’t really think comedians who target different ethnic groups to be funny. I think it’s a cheap and easy way to get people to laugh. All Mencia does is make fun of people through stereotypes. Every joke he has ever used has been said before, because he just plays off of stereotypes that different racial and ethnic groups hold. I think making fun of people through stereotypes is first of all wrong because many times the stereotype is not true, and it’s not imaginative or original. Carlos Mencia is not the only comedian guilty of this, but I think he is the most well known. Watch his show for a half hour and you will see him target every minority and majority group you could think of, although watching his show for a full half hour could be considered torture.
Carlos Mencia’s jokes and the jokes of other comedians who do the same thing he does only sustains inequality by making people think that believing stereotypes and repeating them for a laugh are alright, but its not. Im sure that people are offended all the time at Mencia’s show, I know I have been. I know that I will never watch his show again because it only supports what he does, and I don’t agree with him or his ideas at all.
I don’t really think comedians who target different ethnic groups to be funny. I think it’s a cheap and easy way to get people to laugh. All Mencia does is make fun of people through stereotypes. Every joke he has ever used has been said before, because he just plays off of stereotypes that different racial and ethnic groups hold. I think making fun of people through stereotypes is first of all wrong because many times the stereotype is not true, and it’s not imaginative or original. Carlos Mencia is not the only comedian guilty of this, but I think he is the most well known. Watch his show for a half hour and you will see him target every minority and majority group you could think of, although watching his show for a full half hour could be considered torture.
Carlos Mencia’s jokes and the jokes of other comedians who do the same thing he does only sustains inequality by making people think that believing stereotypes and repeating them for a laugh are alright, but its not. Im sure that people are offended all the time at Mencia’s show, I know I have been. I know that I will never watch his show again because it only supports what he does, and I don’t agree with him or his ideas at all.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Reading Reflection Seven
“Rape was considered a crime against men, or more accurately, against men’s property.” (Newman 259)
The section on rape in this chapter made me furious. Whenever rape statistics and studies on rape or reported I become furious. That all women must live with the threat of rape in the back of their minds makes me furious. When I go to the grocery store, when I walk back to my car from work, and especially when I go out on the weekends the fact that I could be raped always lurks somewhere in the back of my mind. From the time I was about 12 years old and still to this day I have been trained in ways to prevent rape. Newman lists many of them on page 262, and notes how all of those measures are ways in which women can prevent being raped. Rarely are there measures to be taken for men. It is even more frustrating that the United States is one of the more sympathetic countries when it comes to rape victims.
This chapter made me realize how our world still needs to progress when it comes to women, and rape. The fact that women are blamed and sometimes even killed for being rape victims is appalling. Newman explains in the quote I chose that rape has long been considered a crime against men because families and husbands are both dishonored when their women become “tainted” and they are also humiliated that they could not protect the women they fee responsible for. Even in the United States “rape victims must prove their innocence, rather than the state having to prove the guilt of the defendant” (261). As a woman I will always support the woman’s side of the argument, and I do not agree with the way rape victims are often put on trial, this chapter did challenge my beliefs because I do understand that in convictions where a person could go to jail for years and years that it is important to make sure the defendant is really guilty. However, I don’t think it is fair that a victims’ pasts and relationships with their rapists are put on trial, or that women can be blamed because of her behavior.
As far as my behavior goes, it won’t change, because I still need to take precautions when it comes to rape. However, reading this chapter, especially the sections on different cultures and their views on rape made me want to get involved with rape crisis outreach programs both in the US and possibly elsewhere. I also think that both men and women need to become more educated when it comes to rape.
The section on rape in this chapter made me furious. Whenever rape statistics and studies on rape or reported I become furious. That all women must live with the threat of rape in the back of their minds makes me furious. When I go to the grocery store, when I walk back to my car from work, and especially when I go out on the weekends the fact that I could be raped always lurks somewhere in the back of my mind. From the time I was about 12 years old and still to this day I have been trained in ways to prevent rape. Newman lists many of them on page 262, and notes how all of those measures are ways in which women can prevent being raped. Rarely are there measures to be taken for men. It is even more frustrating that the United States is one of the more sympathetic countries when it comes to rape victims.
This chapter made me realize how our world still needs to progress when it comes to women, and rape. The fact that women are blamed and sometimes even killed for being rape victims is appalling. Newman explains in the quote I chose that rape has long been considered a crime against men because families and husbands are both dishonored when their women become “tainted” and they are also humiliated that they could not protect the women they fee responsible for. Even in the United States “rape victims must prove their innocence, rather than the state having to prove the guilt of the defendant” (261). As a woman I will always support the woman’s side of the argument, and I do not agree with the way rape victims are often put on trial, this chapter did challenge my beliefs because I do understand that in convictions where a person could go to jail for years and years that it is important to make sure the defendant is really guilty. However, I don’t think it is fair that a victims’ pasts and relationships with their rapists are put on trial, or that women can be blamed because of her behavior.
As far as my behavior goes, it won’t change, because I still need to take precautions when it comes to rape. However, reading this chapter, especially the sections on different cultures and their views on rape made me want to get involved with rape crisis outreach programs both in the US and possibly elsewhere. I also think that both men and women need to become more educated when it comes to rape.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Reading Reflection Six
"Working class and poor people must receive less preventative health care than wealthy people and often must endure inadequate treatment in crowded public clinics.” (Newman, 190).
This chapter began with an anecdote from Newman about a trip he took to Thailand and a visit he had to make to a hospital. He expected to have to wait in line for hours because of all the people he saw in front of him in line, but because he was American and the hospital staff knew he would be able to pay, and most likely pay in cash he was rushed in and received some of the most personal care he had ever received at a hospital. This story clearly shows how not only in America, but all over the world the health care you receive is dependent on the amount of money you have.
Personally, the entire healthcare system both here and in Thailand makes me furious. Healthcare, at least in my eyes, is one of the things that should be provided if you cannot afford it. It is ridiculous to me that people go without medical attention because they don’t have the money to pay, and it happens all the time all over the world. I cannot understand how a government could be aware of the issues with healthcare and still not do anything to help.
I am from Massachusetts and recently they passed a law that says it is illegal to not have health insurance. Until your 18 your parents take care of your health, and if you go to college you are all set, but many of my friends got jobs right after high school, and they cannot afford health insurance. The new law completely screwed anyone who gets out of high school, is looking for a job, must say their expenses, and health insurance is required. The whole system makes me furious.
Newman clearly pointed out how the rich receive better healthcare simply because they are wealthy. He and I are in agreement that it is not fair and something needs to change. Although I was aware of the issues with insurance and healthcare in America, and I knew that all over the world people were not receiving the care required I never gave it much thought because it did not affect me. I would really like to see something change in this area, because I can’t see it remaining the same.
This chapter began with an anecdote from Newman about a trip he took to Thailand and a visit he had to make to a hospital. He expected to have to wait in line for hours because of all the people he saw in front of him in line, but because he was American and the hospital staff knew he would be able to pay, and most likely pay in cash he was rushed in and received some of the most personal care he had ever received at a hospital. This story clearly shows how not only in America, but all over the world the health care you receive is dependent on the amount of money you have.
Personally, the entire healthcare system both here and in Thailand makes me furious. Healthcare, at least in my eyes, is one of the things that should be provided if you cannot afford it. It is ridiculous to me that people go without medical attention because they don’t have the money to pay, and it happens all the time all over the world. I cannot understand how a government could be aware of the issues with healthcare and still not do anything to help.
I am from Massachusetts and recently they passed a law that says it is illegal to not have health insurance. Until your 18 your parents take care of your health, and if you go to college you are all set, but many of my friends got jobs right after high school, and they cannot afford health insurance. The new law completely screwed anyone who gets out of high school, is looking for a job, must say their expenses, and health insurance is required. The whole system makes me furious.
Newman clearly pointed out how the rich receive better healthcare simply because they are wealthy. He and I are in agreement that it is not fair and something needs to change. Although I was aware of the issues with insurance and healthcare in America, and I knew that all over the world people were not receiving the care required I never gave it much thought because it did not affect me. I would really like to see something change in this area, because I can’t see it remaining the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)