“Tolerance is not only expected but necessary, especially in one like ours that professes to respect the rights of individuals to be who they are as long as they don’t hurt anyone else.”
I have mixed feelings about hate crimes, and it's hard for me to put my foot down and make up my mind about whether or not I agree with them. First, and most importantly, if there is a way to stop, or lessen the number of crimes committed purely because of a personal aversion to a certain group of people, I feel that we, as a nation, should accept what limitations come along. A hate crime is an offense that is often far more hurtful and detrimental than other crimes against people. This is because it leaves people living in fear, which is not okay.
On the other hand, I also believe very strongly that we live in a country where we deserve the freedom to believe whatever we want. People should be allowed to be prejudice. Maybe I hate every girl that walks around wearing shirts that say "Abercrombie" across the chest. Or maybe I was traumatized as a child and as a result am fearful and resentful of priests. Shouldn't I be allowed to feel that way? I think that we deserve the right to be prejudice if we want to be. That's what living "freely" is.
These conflicting views make it difficult to make up my mind as to the way I feel about hate crimes. The problem comes into play when it comes time for discretion. Was that a hate crime? or was that a just a white man beating up a black man who used pejoratives during the incident? I think that it is all to easy to make a common crime a hate crime. When correctly enforced, however, I think that it is crucial to do what we can to deter random acts of violence due to hatred.
I believe that people have feelings which will never change, many people hate black people or homosexuals, that will never change, but I think that there should be tolerance for people different than yourself and with that our world could be a much better place. :-)
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Observation Journal 5
"What are you supposed to be?" "Muslim women, can't you tell?"
On Halloween I took my two little brothers trick or treating. We left the house and walked down the road aways. We say many different outfits including fun ones like a toaster and other outfits such as little girls dressed like genies. I also saw two girls in long dresses, about 10 years old walking with each other, both had mothers following behind them. I watched the two girls bump into a friend from school. "What are you guys supposed to be?" he asked. "Oh, we're Muslim women. Can't you tell?" One of the girls said as she pointed to her forehead and then did a spin around to show off her outfit. Now I have since been told to get over it, as it was "no big deal," but I am just blown away by this.
These two girls were dressed in long dresses one pink and one blue. They both had respectively pink and blue sparkling head covers. These were very over the top and exaggerated. Also the girls wore large sparkling gems on their foreheads. They ran around the streets like all the other children, but I couldn't help but think why they decided to be Muslim for Halloween, or why their mother's approved. It's like being Jewish for Halloween, it is just so rude. And for the record, I've never seen anyone dressed up like a Jew for Halloween. I feel like those girls (and in turn) their mothers are mocking Muslim women by 'dressing up like one.'
Oh, and the gems.... how ignorant!!! The gems that those girls put of their foreheads were supposed to be like the third eye that many Hindu women have, which is actually supposed to be a small red dot. Way to get your religions straight, Mom.
I guess my biggest problem with this isn't the girls' choice for a Halloween costume, rather their mothers for allowing it. Of coarse I didn't say anything to them, but I did rant about it for quite sometime to my family. How could someone have the audacity to dress up like these women?? What a joke these people are making of the religion. I wish people would just get it.
On Halloween I took my two little brothers trick or treating. We left the house and walked down the road aways. We say many different outfits including fun ones like a toaster and other outfits such as little girls dressed like genies. I also saw two girls in long dresses, about 10 years old walking with each other, both had mothers following behind them. I watched the two girls bump into a friend from school. "What are you guys supposed to be?" he asked. "Oh, we're Muslim women. Can't you tell?" One of the girls said as she pointed to her forehead and then did a spin around to show off her outfit. Now I have since been told to get over it, as it was "no big deal," but I am just blown away by this.
These two girls were dressed in long dresses one pink and one blue. They both had respectively pink and blue sparkling head covers. These were very over the top and exaggerated. Also the girls wore large sparkling gems on their foreheads. They ran around the streets like all the other children, but I couldn't help but think why they decided to be Muslim for Halloween, or why their mother's approved. It's like being Jewish for Halloween, it is just so rude. And for the record, I've never seen anyone dressed up like a Jew for Halloween. I feel like those girls (and in turn) their mothers are mocking Muslim women by 'dressing up like one.'
Oh, and the gems.... how ignorant!!! The gems that those girls put of their foreheads were supposed to be like the third eye that many Hindu women have, which is actually supposed to be a small red dot. Way to get your religions straight, Mom.
I guess my biggest problem with this isn't the girls' choice for a Halloween costume, rather their mothers for allowing it. Of coarse I didn't say anything to them, but I did rant about it for quite sometime to my family. How could someone have the audacity to dress up like these women?? What a joke these people are making of the religion. I wish people would just get it.
Observation Journal 4
"The president can't be black!"
Being a bartender I tend to hear a lot of interesting conversations. Yesterday, a woman and man at the bar got into a heated discussion about who has a better chance of being elected president. The "nigger" or the "bitch," as the man referred to them. (Barak Obama or Hillary Clinton) I could not believe the fact that this man had the guts to say that out loud. But being his bartender, it would be out of line for me to step into the conversation and let him know how rude he was. The couple discussed different reactions to the two candidates that would come from different areas in the country. Though I did not hear the entire conversation, it got me thinking about it.
Of what I did hear, one of the arguments was that people see Obama as uneducated. "Black people don't usually have an opportunity to get schooling like white people, so he's probably not as quick," the man stated. How stereotypical. "The president can't be black, it wouldn't fit," he said. Furthermore, he went on to say that if Hillary is elected there will be too much drama because women are "too catty and petty to run a country." Perhaps this man has made his judgments from actual observations of his, or maybe he is speaking on behalf of the ignorant people who raised him. Either way it showed that our country is still very far from living in equality.
In a country that claims to be equal, there has never been a president that was not a white male. Of the forty three presidents we have had, they all fit this description. Some brave people have challenged this as there are many women and men who are not white that have run for president--but all of them have failed. And as far as I know, none of them have come as far as Barak and Hillary. If elected, obviously our country will be run differently, however with every election brings change to our country. I think that it is time to be open to the idea of change. I, unfortunately, have not followed any of the debates and have hardly heard anyone's views, but I have a feeling that no matter how great either of these two candidates may be, they still don't have a chance. It has been less than ninety years since women were granted the right to vote and blacks (realistically) forty two years ago. Perhaps in another forty or maybe hundred years our country will be able to see through color and gender and deal with the real issues our nation should be thinking about.
Being a bartender I tend to hear a lot of interesting conversations. Yesterday, a woman and man at the bar got into a heated discussion about who has a better chance of being elected president. The "nigger" or the "bitch," as the man referred to them. (Barak Obama or Hillary Clinton) I could not believe the fact that this man had the guts to say that out loud. But being his bartender, it would be out of line for me to step into the conversation and let him know how rude he was. The couple discussed different reactions to the two candidates that would come from different areas in the country. Though I did not hear the entire conversation, it got me thinking about it.
Of what I did hear, one of the arguments was that people see Obama as uneducated. "Black people don't usually have an opportunity to get schooling like white people, so he's probably not as quick," the man stated. How stereotypical. "The president can't be black, it wouldn't fit," he said. Furthermore, he went on to say that if Hillary is elected there will be too much drama because women are "too catty and petty to run a country." Perhaps this man has made his judgments from actual observations of his, or maybe he is speaking on behalf of the ignorant people who raised him. Either way it showed that our country is still very far from living in equality.
In a country that claims to be equal, there has never been a president that was not a white male. Of the forty three presidents we have had, they all fit this description. Some brave people have challenged this as there are many women and men who are not white that have run for president--but all of them have failed. And as far as I know, none of them have come as far as Barak and Hillary. If elected, obviously our country will be run differently, however with every election brings change to our country. I think that it is time to be open to the idea of change. I, unfortunately, have not followed any of the debates and have hardly heard anyone's views, but I have a feeling that no matter how great either of these two candidates may be, they still don't have a chance. It has been less than ninety years since women were granted the right to vote and blacks (realistically) forty two years ago. Perhaps in another forty or maybe hundred years our country will be able to see through color and gender and deal with the real issues our nation should be thinking about.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Reading Reflection #9
As I read the last chapter I felt relieved to finally get through it. This book has been one of the more interesting books that I have had to read for classes, and it has been a break from textbook work.
Newman challenged me big time. His beliefs are similar to mine as we both believe that equality is crucial, however he has challenged me as a person to step up to the plate. He make many points about our society that I have overlooked--such as the weatherman always being accepted. Anther thing Newman points out are problems with things such as the US Census Bureau asking for a person's race and only having six categories to choose from. I have never had an issue with it, because I am white, I don't have to read any further than that. However I might feel differently if I had a black mother and a white father. Throughout reading this book I have been challenged to point out inequality and oppression that remains overlooked in our society.
I really liked the section in this chapter called "Possibilities: altering inequalities." The black students who sat in a Woolworth's protested in what I consider the best way to alter inequalities. They were nonviolent. They were calm, quite and respectful while their "superiors" (white people) were proving themselves as rude and immature by shouting and physically trying to move them. The black students prevailed, in my mind, even if they did not get served--they made a monumental point and they proved themselves to be superior. Being nonviolent shows the maturity and poise that these students have which the angry white people obviously did not have. Though protests can be unsuccessful in their goals (of things like being served at Woolworth's) but are always successful in that they spread the word and make a point. This inspires me to work towards altering inequalities.
The last chapter left me asking questions, as Newman obviously planned. When will differences be accepted rather than something that divides our society? It is unfortunate, but I feel that equality is not something that I will see in our country in my lifetime. Maybe we are taking steps towards it, but they're only babysteps. Sure, over the past hundred years we have made huge strides towards equality, but in the past fifty, our effort has waned. After finishing this book I feel like social change is something that can occur, but it can only happen with the cooperation of people nationwide.
Newman challenged me big time. His beliefs are similar to mine as we both believe that equality is crucial, however he has challenged me as a person to step up to the plate. He make many points about our society that I have overlooked--such as the weatherman always being accepted. Anther thing Newman points out are problems with things such as the US Census Bureau asking for a person's race and only having six categories to choose from. I have never had an issue with it, because I am white, I don't have to read any further than that. However I might feel differently if I had a black mother and a white father. Throughout reading this book I have been challenged to point out inequality and oppression that remains overlooked in our society.
I really liked the section in this chapter called "Possibilities: altering inequalities." The black students who sat in a Woolworth's protested in what I consider the best way to alter inequalities. They were nonviolent. They were calm, quite and respectful while their "superiors" (white people) were proving themselves as rude and immature by shouting and physically trying to move them. The black students prevailed, in my mind, even if they did not get served--they made a monumental point and they proved themselves to be superior. Being nonviolent shows the maturity and poise that these students have which the angry white people obviously did not have. Though protests can be unsuccessful in their goals (of things like being served at Woolworth's) but are always successful in that they spread the word and make a point. This inspires me to work towards altering inequalities.
The last chapter left me asking questions, as Newman obviously planned. When will differences be accepted rather than something that divides our society? It is unfortunate, but I feel that equality is not something that I will see in our country in my lifetime. Maybe we are taking steps towards it, but they're only babysteps. Sure, over the past hundred years we have made huge strides towards equality, but in the past fifty, our effort has waned. After finishing this book I feel like social change is something that can occur, but it can only happen with the cooperation of people nationwide.
Reading Reflection #8
"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 says that a person cannot be denied a job or fired from existing employment simply because of his or her gender, race, religion, or ethnicity." p.290
It's too bad this this Act is not something that can be upheld perfectly.
This chapter was filled with statistics! As much as I enjoy statistics, I feel that Newman has a tendency to overuse them. It is just hard to pick out the important statistics and what I should be taking away from this chapter.
As I read the opening paragraph of Gender Discrimination on the Workplace, for the first time, I found myself disagreeing with Newman. He tells us that by a boss asking for extra hours, going to conferences, attending business meetings which one has to travel to, and training programs are examples of discrimination because "women, especially mothers, still tend to have the lion's share of responsibility at home, they have more difficulty making time for these activities than male employees do," p.301 Perhaps I somehow read this wrong, but to me this sounds silly. I would hope that my boss (even if I have children) would ask me to attend meetings and trainings. If I wasn't asked, I would be offended because is is discrimination to assume that because I have children, I am unable to keep up with my professional life. If I want a specific position in an office, I will be willing to do what it takes to be the best at my job, even if that means asking the babysitter to stay an extra couple hours.
This part of the chapter also noted some challenges that women do in fact face in the workplace such as the fact that a male will be chosen 25% more often than a female in many job positions, even if they have the same qualifications. Also, Newman talks about men making more money than women. This is something that absolutely infuriates me. I plan to become a lawyer and to think that the man sitting in the office next to me is on average making $200 a week more than me is hard to swallow. It makes me realize how hard it is going to be to rise above my own disadvantages and become equal.
Comparing my personal feelings about gender discrimination in the workplace to other discrimination, I have trouble with the thought that much discrimination is not protected against on a national level. If there is a discriminatory law against being homosexual, it is a state law because it has been left out of our federal discrimination laws. For instance, if a person is working at a place where health care is offered for you and your spouce, you could be fired simply because your partner is of the same sex as you. There is nothing protecting homosexuals in federal laws.
I find it wonderful that there is some action being taken towards making discrimination in the workplace illegal. However not all the bases have been covered, nor have they been covered to the extent they should be, and there are too many ways to legally discriminate.
It's too bad this this Act is not something that can be upheld perfectly.
This chapter was filled with statistics! As much as I enjoy statistics, I feel that Newman has a tendency to overuse them. It is just hard to pick out the important statistics and what I should be taking away from this chapter.
As I read the opening paragraph of Gender Discrimination on the Workplace, for the first time, I found myself disagreeing with Newman. He tells us that by a boss asking for extra hours, going to conferences, attending business meetings which one has to travel to, and training programs are examples of discrimination because "women, especially mothers, still tend to have the lion's share of responsibility at home, they have more difficulty making time for these activities than male employees do," p.301 Perhaps I somehow read this wrong, but to me this sounds silly. I would hope that my boss (even if I have children) would ask me to attend meetings and trainings. If I wasn't asked, I would be offended because is is discrimination to assume that because I have children, I am unable to keep up with my professional life. If I want a specific position in an office, I will be willing to do what it takes to be the best at my job, even if that means asking the babysitter to stay an extra couple hours.
This part of the chapter also noted some challenges that women do in fact face in the workplace such as the fact that a male will be chosen 25% more often than a female in many job positions, even if they have the same qualifications. Also, Newman talks about men making more money than women. This is something that absolutely infuriates me. I plan to become a lawyer and to think that the man sitting in the office next to me is on average making $200 a week more than me is hard to swallow. It makes me realize how hard it is going to be to rise above my own disadvantages and become equal.
Comparing my personal feelings about gender discrimination in the workplace to other discrimination, I have trouble with the thought that much discrimination is not protected against on a national level. If there is a discriminatory law against being homosexual, it is a state law because it has been left out of our federal discrimination laws. For instance, if a person is working at a place where health care is offered for you and your spouce, you could be fired simply because your partner is of the same sex as you. There is nothing protecting homosexuals in federal laws.
I find it wonderful that there is some action being taken towards making discrimination in the workplace illegal. However not all the bases have been covered, nor have they been covered to the extent they should be, and there are too many ways to legally discriminate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)