# data[].attributes.body
Consumption shows class and status, something I wasn't aware of until recent years. For me personally, that has never been something I've done consciously or on purpose, but after reading this chapter, I've realized how subtle it can be. People from higher classes have always done things to separate themselves from the lower classes, such as, talked about in this chapter, creating tableware like forks for every dish imaginable. Something ultimately useless other than setting the wealthy who could afford the elaborate table wear sets apart from those who could not afford them. In addition to that, they created different forms of etiquette, something that is still prevalent today. An example of this would be someone who has embodied cultural capital likely passed onto them by their parents, would be comfortable in a high-end restaurant, and would know how to act and present themselves to someone they are meeting with in hopes of landing a job offer. This gives them an incredible advantage over someone of a lower class who was not passed on this knowledge because of their parents lower status. At the same time, I do understand that high-status consumption and wealth are related, but the relationship is culturally complex. Going back to what I stated earlier, I now realize that the high class never stopped doing that, creating new trends to stay "different" from everyone below them. The only difference is that it is more prevalent through celebrities and influencers. I commonly see videos online of regular, non-high-class people talking about what a celebrity was wearing and how that brand is now the new trend, even if it's a brand or product that common people would not be able to afford. It becomes desired once a wealthy person shows them wearing it or using it. This causes people to buy fake versions of it, and once the common folks begin buying fakes, it becomes tacky in the eyes of the elite, and they move onto another brand or product to make sure they stay "different" from the common people. I realize now that this is what makes things trendy for short periods of times, then it changes. When it comes to Starbucks, I personally have felt how it's related to social status. It has always been a special treat in my family-- too expensive to buy on a regular basis, but cheap in a sense to buy when we had the money for it. Growing up, I always saw it as a "high-end" type of place. The design inside always felt as though they were trying to embody the atmosphere of a cozy coffee shop, but it lacked warmth. I never felt welcomed inside, especially when most people there were working silently, as well as the odd nerves that came up because I would always forget or mix up the specific lingo used when ordering. After reading this chapter, I learned that it's lost its sophisticated title among coffee enthusiasts, but to me, it's still not a place I feel welcomed in. I don't think Starbucks counts as a third place. It's too filled with people working individually, and everyone either goes with people they already know. It's not a place that encourages strangers to strike up conversations with each other like a true third-place would. High-status consumption trends in the Global North are definitely related to the working conditions in the Global South. This typically means people want high-quality goods for the cheapest price possible, which leads to the laborers actually manufacturing or farming the product being under paid. I'm not very familiar with the entire process of manufacturing or farming goods and then transporting them, but I do know that it takes a long, grueling, and complex process in which it's easy for corporations to take advantage of the labor workers. They can push them to work harder for more production while taking most of the profit for themselves and paying them less and less. This also means that working conditions most likely aren't the best or up to code at all.

# data[].attributes.body
My thoughts on poverty have always been similar to most people's. It's a negative part of our society, and it should be eliminated completely, but after reading this article, it's sad to realize how it will likely never happen. There are a lot of factors that keep poverty in our society that I didn't know about until this article. One of the most surprising aspects of the article were the benefits that poverty creates for everyone else, like the fact that it creates jobs in areas of criminology, social work, and public health. The author lists and explains thirteen different functions of poverty, some of which I knew and some of which I had no idea about. One thing that I did know was that poverty makes sure that the "dirty work" that our society provides has people to do it. Types of jobs that are dead ends, dangerous, or temporary that most middle- and upper-class people would find no point in taking. We could pay them more to make it easier to find workers, which is unlikely because that would mean less money for other "better jobs," so they leave the jobs for those in poverty who need any job they can get, even when the wage is incredibly low. One that I never thought about was the fact that they prolong the economic usefulness of the goods. Food that isn't quite fresh for a middle- or upper-class family could be thrown out, but for a family living in poverty, it would be a complete waste. They buy things like second hand clothes and other things society doesn't want. Additionally, people who uplift the norms of honesty and hard work need someone to call dishonest and lazy, which falls on the poor. All of these functions are beneficial to those in higher classes, but it truly feels wrong to call them functions. The article also goes into what the alternatives to poverty would be. It is possible that some of the functions that they provide for the other classes could still be kept while earning a higher wage, but this would mean they'd become more affluent and begin competing with the others for the provider roll. Something I really liked was at the end of the article when Gans said that poverty doesn't only persist because of the "positive functions" but also because the alternatives to those functions would be dysfunctional for the affluent members of our society. This is one of the biggest reasons why I don't think this will ever change. The members of higher classes hold too much power; therefore, they'd never agree to change that wouldn't be beneficial for themselves.

# data[].attributes.headline
3/22 - (H)  Morris & Grimes, Moving Up....

# data[].attributes.subject
3/22 - (H)  Morris & Grimes, Moving Up....

# data[].attributes.body
The article was on the topic of the childhood socialization of sociologists who came from working-class backgrounds. At the beginning of the writing, Morris and Grimes stated that the class location of parents is directly correlated to the socialization that children experience. This makes sense because, as children, the most influential people in our lives are our parents and guardians. One of the first differences working-class parents have with middle-class and upper-class parents is that working-class parents who often have jobs that go against independent thought are likely to instill the same beliefs in their children. They are more likely to encourage their children to conform rather than think independently and creatively. One thing they all have in common is placing value on early education, but working-class parents would leave most of the work to professionals like teachers and counselors. On the other hand, middle-and upper-class parents are often more involved in their children's education. This also, I believe, comes from the economic differences between the two since working-class families probably don't have the funds to provide tutors or outside-of-school help for their children. One thing I found interesting was the type of advice the participants parents gave them. One was told that he would always have a boss and that he would "always have to obey authority without question nor reason." This was a bit shocking because his father basically implied that he would never be a boss himself, something that I don't believe is very encouraging. Additionally, later in the article, there is an interesting concept that seems common in working-class culture, and that is that holding a higher position at a job is seen as a negative even if it pays more. They shame non-manual positions like jobs that focus more on intellectual or managerial work; they don't see it as "real" work. There is also a common theme that working-class parents see their duties as necessary and important. The higher classes wouldn't even know how to do their job correctly, even if they tried. Within this topic, there is also a sense of naturalness that these parents experience. Some of them didn't realize they were specifically middle-class and assumed everyone else lived in similar conditions as them. This adds to the feeling that being in the working class is normal and there is no need to climb upwards. When the article began telling me about social capital, I realized it was something I understood secondhand. My only sibling, an older brother, was the first of our generation to complete a degree. Similar to the respondent who spoke of her entry into college, he didn't have anyone who could guide him through the entire process. He had to figure it out on his own, and he had to find the people who could give him vital information on his own as well. It is not only about students with a working-class background lacking vital information but also because of their lack of social ties with people who know the answers to their questions. Another thing that I luckily haven't experienced firsthand, but I do have a lot of friends who struggle with this is the expectation that working-class (especially minority) women face of keeping up with domestic responsibilities on top of their education. As well as the rule of not letting them move too far away because of the other expectation of holding family above all else. With all of this in mind, it makes sense why a lot of people who worked their way up to the middle class who come from a working-class background find it hard to live in the middle-class and make it "feel right."

# data[].attributes.body
As someone who comes from the working class, my knowledge of the upper class comes from the media. Shows like Gossip Girl and movies such as The Great Gatsby and Titanic. I don't believe I've ever even met someone who is a member of the upper class. With that, I knew a little about how they operated their lives. I knew they kept things exclusive, but I had no idea the lengths they went to. The fact that they can also go practically their entire lives without interacting with people of lower classes is mind-boggling, especially since most of the world's population is not in the upper class. Private preparatory schools hold the greatest role, which makes sense because school is basically your entire life before university takes its place. Boarding schools, especially since they encapsulate students, are the best way for upper-class parents to completely control the social and educational environment of their children. The boarding schools themselves would assure that the children are taught the values of the upper-class. Something in this chapter that has also been mentioned in previous ones is the constant need of upper class members to keep themselves different and separate from those in lower classes. Even if a family only recently became upper-class economically, it doesn't mean they are socially or culturally. These upper-class families, or how I've always heard people refer to them as old money families, want to keep themselves apart from new money families. It isn't just about the money; It's also about the family status you come from. To become part of this exclusive group, you must either be born into it or marry into it. You can't work hard and fit in easily. Children in these elite boarding schools would only be exposed to other children in the same class and be able to build relations that have the possibility of aiding them in their future business ventures. Then, in university, they join the most prestigious of institutions like Harvard, Yale, or Princeton. Which I've heard about, but what I didn't know before reading this chapter was that there were ways to separate members of each class in the university itself through exclusive clubs. It's not enough to get into a school that most of the lower classes can't afford, but they need to make clubs in order to keep themselves separate. It kind of feels like they believe the lower classes have some sort of disease that will get passed on to them if they get too close. This idea of clubs continues after they graduate and begin their lives as working adults through metropolitan dining clubs and more well-known suburban country clubs. Something that I found surprising was that they aren't as religion based as I believed. They have a long standing connection with the Protestant Episcopal Church, but mainly because the "richness of the church's ritual, the classic traditionalism of most Episcopalian architecture, and the sophisticated, urbane, and intellectual nature of its leaders have a great appeal to the upper class." Basically, it elevates their status. Something I noted was that there are a lot of aspects that are intended to strengthen bonds between families and create alliances. For example, debutante balls are technically meant to show off the daughters of these elite families that are available for marriage. However, the season strengthens intermetropolitan relations just as holiday homes do. A book describing all of the families who are "in" is called the social register. It makes sense that this is a thing; it makes it easier to track who belongs to which family, and so on. It includes things like which boarding school and university they attended, the year of their graduation, and their club memberships. They can also include the previous information about their children. Considering these upper-class members hold their status so high above everything else, it's understandable why they've created yet another thing to be exclusive members of, such as this book.

# data[].attributes.headline
3/26 -  Wealth Inequality in the United States

# data[].attributes.subject
3/26 -  Wealth Inequality in the United States

# data[].attributes.body
I am honestly at a loss for words. The gap between the top 1% and everyone else is what surprised me the most. After reading this week's last chapter on how wealthy this country's upper class is, helps me understand how much richer the top 1% is than all of them. What I didn't find surprising was that the poorest Americans don't even register, meaning they are well below the poverty line. I've always hoped that one day I'd live comfortably, but considering the fact that most people in the middle class, which I consider to mean "living comfortably," are no different from the poor, I don't have much hope I'll be able to achieve that. I've heard of people calling the United States a third-world country trying to wear a disguise, and I never understood that. I always saw other third-world countries as worse than America, likely because that's what the government wants us to believe, but I've realized we aren't all that different. There are people living on the streets more than ever, people living pay check to pay check, people who can't afford groceries, and knowing that the top 1% has the money to help and maybe even solve some or all of those issues is infuriating. I know poverty is beneficial to those in higher classes, and those same people make it incredibly difficult to move up the chain. I also know that the upper classes will do anything to keep things the way they are while doing everything to make sure their generational wealth keeps being passed down and not given to anyone else. The wealthy will stay rich and the poor will only get poorer, and I don't think it's going to change anytime soon.

# data[].attributes.body
As someone who isn't into sports but grew up with my dad and grandpa being big baseball fans, I've always been able to see sports from an outside perspective. I grew up in the Bay Area, where the biggest sport in popularity is basketball. In elementary school, middle school, and even high school, the basket ball courts were always filled with students playing. In the first part of the chapter, we learn about how Jews were more likely to take up basketball because it required less than other sports. For example, it doesn't need a baseball-sized field, and the only equipment is a ball and hoop. And with Jewish Americans being socio-economically disadvantaged, it was a perfect sport in terms of availability. Even though people at the time thought that it was because Jewish citizens were smaller and therefore more mobile, in reality, it wasn't because of their race. Racial differences that some deem scientific are actually just based on flawed understandings. Sports can also connect people who are socially different, meaning if you have little in common with someone, chances are you can ask them about sports, and they will likely have some sort of knowledge in that aspect. I can't relate to this at all. If someone were to ask me, my knowledge only goes as far as the names of teams such as the Golden State Warriors, the San Francisco Giants, and the San Francisco 49ers. I don't know if they're doing well, nor do I know any of the players names, when their last game was, or when their next game will be. Having a lot of family members who are big sports enthusiasts, it is quite surprising I didn't follow the same interest. Something that I have had a sprinkle of interest in, though, has been the Olympics. The nations of the world send their best athletes to the Olympics to represent them in a competition against other countries. That is the only time I get that feeling of wanting a certain team to win. With this, I have also become aware of some negatives of the Olympics, such as the fact that when a country decides to host, it often causes the local homeless population to be displaced. This means they're often forced to move elsewhere and are inhumanely moved aside. I have also been aware of how much less women athletes are paid in comparison to male athletes, since it is yet another effect of patriarchy, something I have been learning quite a bit about in recent years. The example this chapter uses, saying that Australia does a lot better at swimming events in the summer Olympics and Norway does a lot better than other countries in skiing events, is common sense to me. This is obviously not something related to race, but it's because of the climate and geography. If people live in a place where it's warmer and there are a lot of beaches, it makes sense that more people will know how to swim or surf. If you live somewhere where there are harsh, long winters, it makes sense that a lot of people will know how to ski, and therefore there will be a bigger pool of people who know how to ski to choose from to train and send to the Olympics. Since there are more people, they are more likely to find more people than other countries who are very good and, with some more training, become even better and are able to be sent to the Olympics. This is because race is a social construct, and because it is, it's forever changing, which is why filling out questionnaires is increasingly difficult for people in the United States since it is a melting pot of different types of people from all over the world. Even though race is not "factual," it doesn't take away from serious issues such as racism. The link between sports and race is not based on racial differences but on social factors. The types of factors that determine the likelihood of a child's interest in a certain sport, their training, and eventually becoming a professional athlete in that sport. With so many sports fans around the world, businesses would be stupid not to take advantage of that and make business out of it. Nations spend billions of dollars on competitions, and the top athletes also make an incredible amount of money not only from the organization they play with but also from fans buying merchandise. There is also an interesting point that this chapter made, and it's the fact that sports as a way out of poverty is a myth. I think even as a child, I always saw movies and interviews with big athletes speaking about how they came from nothing and became something. They made it sound easy as if anyone could do it with enough hard work, which I'm not realizing is a very American way of thinking, which is also not true at all. Additionally, middle- and upper-class parents using sports to give their children a competitive edge in the future makes a lot of sense to me. A lot of my friends who participated in sports for the majority of their lives were extremely competitive, which is a useful tool when entering the job market, especially in occupations related to business. It also gives children the ability to perform under pressure and with time constraints, all skills needed in the types of job fields middle- and upper-class people tend to go into.

# data[].attributes.headline
3/28 - (JCB)  Chapter 12: Music/Racism and Cultural Appropriation

# data[].attributes.subject
3/28 - (JCB)  Chapter 12: Music/Racism and Cultural Appropriation

# data[].attributes.body
Unlike sports, which I wrote about in my last entry, music is another universal topic, one that I can actually say I partake in. I listen to music every single day, and I don't remember a day when I haven't listened to at least one song. Music is an art form and one that can hold symbolism, which sometimes can be left for interpretation, meaning anyone who listens to it can each take away a different meaning. It makes songs a lot more personal since it feels like they were specifically made for you, even when in reality they weren't. Additionally, music is part of consumer culture. There is a large, multibillion-dollar industry that music supports, which has songwriters, artists, producers, and technicians. Not to mention music sales, which were more common back when you had to physically buy records or CDs, but in our digital age, the sales of those things have dropped significantly. It has been replaced by digital downloads and streaming services. The strongest aspect of music is that it is a tool of cultural resistance, and as a form of political expression, some topics include poverty, war, police violence, women's rights, racism, and slavery. I have picked up on some of my older brother's music tastes, which include some artists from the punk subculture, which has anti-establishment and anti-capitalism views. Subcultures also tend to have an established fashion style and way of life, and hip-hop is no exception. The history of jazz was not one I was familiar with other than knowing that it originated from African Americans. Something that I did know was the fact that "coolness" was and still is largely associated with African American culture. What I also learned from this chapter is that hip-hop was created by African American and Latino youth in the South Bronx. It also brought along cultural expressions such as graffiti and breakdancing. Most notably, hip-hop has great political potential that is exercised by mentioning things like institutional racism. The biggest example of institutional racism is in schools. African American boys are "adultified," meaning when they break a school rule, school faculty is more likely to see that as them being sinister and fully conscious of what they are doing instead of seeing a child making a mistake. This also applies to girls. I read in one of my other classes about this phenomenon where white people specifically perceive African American girls as a lot older than they actually are. This gives them the false idea that whatever childlike mistake they might make is the one of an adult with a fully developed brain, meaning they'd interpret the mistake as intentional. One of the biggest shocks was that the "United States imprisons a greater proportion of the population than any other country." That was something I was not expecting at all. With the most recent Elvis movie that came out in 2022, I remember seeing a lot of commotion about it on social media, and then after some time, people started talking about how he borrowed a lot from black music at the time and never gave credit where it was due. The topic of cultural appropriation has also become a popular topic in recent years. One of the biggest things when it comes to culturally appropriating African American culture is the fact that things like grills, cornrows, and sagging are typically viewed negatively when they're worn by black people but cool when they're worn by white people. I typically listen to music on Spotify, which isn't a great site to expand your music taste. It has become quite repetitive these last couple of updates. It used to give you more freedom and have options that would expose you to new songs that were similar to the ones you'd have in your playlist, but a lot of those systems have been taken off. It has become quite constraining when you want to expand your music taste. Lastly, a song I got from my brother's musical library is "American Idiot" by Green Day. It speaks about how America has been using the media after the 9/11 attacks to spread mass hysteria and the negative aspects of the media. Not only is it a good song at its core, but it's also able to express the anger and confusion Americans felt at the time and could still be applied to more recent times, like when the results of the last presidential election came out.

# data[].attributes.body
In this reading Page, a journalist recounts how he first learned of race, specifically being black in a white society. The first memory he tells us about is him being a child visiting Alabama in the 1950s, when segregation between white and black people, including anyone who wasn't white, was present. He saw water fountains marked "white" and "colored" he ran to the colored one, thinking the water was going to come out a cool color, and was disappointed when that wasn't the case. I think this is an incredibly impactful recount because it shows that race and ethnicity are not innate things we are born with knowledge of. They are taught by society. He then goes on and tells us about how he wanted to partake in an activity but wasn't allowed because people of color weren't allowed. He claimed he wanted to be white just for a few minutes to be allowed in and to show what a great kid he was. This further shows the innocence of his mind. From his telling, it seems as though he spent a lot of time with white people and had a lot of white friends. One encounter made him realize that he and his white friends lived in completely separate worlds. His friend asked him if he had been to the lake, and he told him, "Colored can't go there." His friend was shocked, and Page was shocked. His friend never even noticed that there weren't any black people at the lake. This was surprising to Page because I imagine that he constantly had to pay attention to what places he was and wasn't allowed to go into. It was his norm to be aware of the places only white people were permitted to go to. His friend never had to worry about any of that contributing to his ignorance. Next, he pointed out something that reminded me of what lengths upper-class people go to to keep the lower classes as far beneath them as possible. He mentioned how white people who were poor, had low egos, or had high insecurity always spoke about how at least they weren't black. "Segregation helped them uphold and maintain this illusion of superiority." It's terrible how no matter how low these particular white people's (the ones who thought like this) lives are, they hated black people so much they'd rather go through different hardships than be black. Also, they knew how hard they made black people's lives, and they never wanted to experience the pain they put them through. I had never heard of the saying "showing one's color" up until this reading. Back then, it basically meant showing the worst stereotypes of how black people behaved. This is an understandable saying, especially for parents to tell their children. They were already hated in society for their race and culture, which meant they had to be extremely careful not to show them. They couldn't hide their skin color, but since they were hated for their stereotypes, it's logical to want to avoid doing the things that white people hated you for. But it's important to note that even if a black person were to act 100% like a white person, that wouldn't be enough because of their appearance. I hate when people try to "get past race," because that is not possible. Seeing someone first by their race has been imbedded into not only the United States' history but everywhere else in the world as well. And because of this, it is important to not be blind to race in order to create equity, because equality just doesn't cut it. Another point Page touched on was not being black enough or being too white to be black. I think a lot of interracial children also struggle with this, not knowing which identity to identify with because you "can't be both." I went to a predominately Asian and white school where the minority of students were Latino and black teens. When Page spoke about how their generation began having school integrated with different races to try and be better than the days of segregation, kids nowadays still have caught onto race codes anyway, and I agree. The Asian kids at our school were the wealthiest and most loved by the school administration, similar to how it is for other schools but with white kids instead. Black and Latino kids were looked down upon if they weren't smart enough, played any sports, or didn't take any AP classes. When they tried to do well in school, they'd often be told they're being white washed. This also includes economic segregation, which I think is the biggest form of segregation in our day. Not only do poor people of color struggle even worse, we have people of color in the upper classes, making the disconnect in our culture terrible, but we also have to deal with wealthy people of color who think they are better than poorer people of color. In the Hispanic community, there are a lot of people who believe they are on the same level as white people, both socially and economically. They together laugh at poorer Latinos, while the white people laugh at both the poor and wealthy Hispanics behind their backs. It's an issue seen a lot in my community and is truly heartbreaking.

# data[].attributes.body
Ezekiel did something I don't think I could ever have the courage to do. He bravely interviewed members and even some leaders of some militant white racist groups. I think for someone who is more progressive and on the left, it is easy to believe that being racist is a choice that they don't make. I admittedly thought this way. He first goes on and tells us the basic ingredients of a white supremacist. They are typically uneducated people who are constantly in a state of crisis. They live in a world where everyday experiences push the idea of race and the idea that white is good. The reason why the movement is still strongly alive is because it takes ideas that are already present in white Americans, no matter how small, and sharpens them. Again, this is why nothing changes, because those beliefs rest on beliefs most white Americans hold but deny. Since they deny it, they can't acknowledge it and change it. Another big aspect is that people are struggling in our economy. Their jobs, pensions, wages, and health care aren't stable, which creates great insecurity in all those aspects of life. Then, with the addition of mass immigration from people fleeting their own governments and economies, the result is mass migrations, which only add fuel to their fears. I admire the fact that Ezekiel wanted to embrace the feeling of being an outsider in such tight-knit groups. He claimed that, in order to learn, one couldn't reject the feeling of being a stranger to these white supremacist groups. Working and trying to conduct interviews and learn from others who are so different and hate what you are must've been terrifying. He also pointed out the fact that these people don't feel fulfilled in their lives. They are "working poorly" in a highly competitive society. Life is a race, and they've fallen behind. They need something to give meaning to their lives, and race is something that draws these people in. These racist groups give them a sense of meaning in life. Ezekiel said, "The struggle over race merely diverts youth from confronting the real issues in their lives." I think that sums it up pretty well. Something not mentioned in his passage that I believe to be true is the fact that since their lives are failing in the sense that most of them are high school dropouts, have blue-collar jobs, and believe their lives hold no true meaning, they need someone to blame other than themselves. Interestingly enough, the white people in the corporate world and upper class have this skewed belief that in America, if you work hard enough, you can do and become anything you desire, which is false. The white people talked about in this chapter blame everyone but themselves. He then goes on and speaks about the fact that racism is a part of everyone, to a certain degree, who lives in a racist society. I agree; I think that it is practically impossible for anyone to say they aren't even slightly racist. We live in a racist society, which has been that way since most of us were even born, meaning we were born into it and have been exposed to so many white racist concepts, explicit and, more importantly, implicit ones. With that being said, I've come to realize how important it is to acknowledge the facts of our flawed thinking in order to change, or at least work on changing them.

# data[].attributes.body
1. What race are you? - I answered this as white. Two people answered as Hispanic. Three people answered as white.

2. How do you know? How do you make that decision? - I know because I have pale skin and in questionnaires white is what best describes my appearance. The two people who answered Hispanic in the first question said that they knew because that is what is in their blood. The three people who answered as white are also ethnically Hispanic and said that their skin was pale and they typically were mistaken as Europeans and that's why they answered white.

3. How did you learn what race you are? Can you tell me about some of the early messages you first received about race in general or your race in particular? - I learned what race I was I suppose the first time I ever filled a questionnaire. I didn't fit any of the other descriptions and my skin color was pale so I assumed I was white racially. Since I only learned of race as something that you look like I never fully identified with it enough since it isn't who I am and it ignored my culture. I'm not sure if it counts, but an early message of white people was that they don't season their food which is a stereotype. The two people who answered Hispanic in the first question claimed they never had an experiences until coming to the US and their experiences go as far as being told off for speaking Spanish. And the last three also "learned" about race while filling out questionnaires and claimed they don't recall early messages about their race.

4. How do you determine what race other people are? - I determine it by their skin color and facial structures. Some examples would be if they have dark skin they're black and if they have tan skin they might be middle eastern or if they have tan skin and hooded eyes they could be islanders and the five people gave me similar answers; by appearance.

5. How do other people decide what race you are? - I'd assume also by skin color and facial features and the five others give me similar answers; by appearance.

# data[].attributes.body
I hadn't seen the announcement until today 4/5. How has your social class affected your life and choices? I think social class has affected my life in a couple ways. Since I come from the working class, I started worrying about money at a much younger age than other people. I was always informed whenever we didn't' have enough money for a toy or when I wanted to get fast food. I was fortunate enough to always have a roof over my head and never go hungry, but I never had the luxuries of the middle and upper classes. This was more apparent since the school that I went to had the majority of students from the middle and high middle classes. A lot of them have million-dollar homes, always had the trending clothing and shoes from the time, and would always be able to go shopping. I think coming from a working class family made me realize I didn't have much freedom when it came to choosing a university or career path. My parents always emphasized choosing something that has a high salary above something I am interested in. Also, they aren't able to fully support me if I were to decide to go to an out-of-state university. Additionally, I have very little to no cultural capital, so I wouldn't know exactly how to leave a top-tier impression during important business dinners or events.

# data[].attributes.headline
4/9 - (JCB)  Chapter 7: Toys/Gender, Sex and Sexuality

# data[].attributes.subject
4/9 - (JCB)  Chapter 7: Toys/Gender, Sex and Sexuality

# data[].attributes.body
At the beginning of the reading, they tell us that pink used to be a boy color, something I knew already. I knew that fact because in school, whenever a boy would make a remark about a girl liking the color pink and how much he didn't like it, people would always tell them that pink had previously been a boy color to try and stop them from acting grossed out by the color because we knew that only acted that way because the color was associated with girls. Because of recent times and how much gender identity has become well known, I'm well versed in the definitions of gender identity, sex, and gender. I've become aware of how gender roles influence so many people in their day-to-day lives. One way is through chores, which I already knew about. Since I could do it on my own, I've always done my own laundry and dishes. My mother would rarely help me with my laundry but would frequently do it for my brother, even though he is 13 years older than me. Whenever we had to build something, my mom would ask my brother, and he wouldn't let me help. Additionally, when I was little, I had a kitchen play set and toys that were pretend cleaning appliances like a vacuum, dust pan, broom, mop, spray bottle, and so on. They were all pink or purple in color, and they always had pictures of other little girls playing with them. Gender policing is how I first started to notice how toys were gendered. I had never really thought about it until there was discourse online about parents letting their boys play with "girl" toys and seeing how much uproar it caused. Some of the policing was because they didn't want this stranger's kid to be bullied, while others was plain sexism and homophobia. They fear that boys playing with girl toys will somehow make them gay or even just less of a man and that girls playing with boy toys will make them lesbians or just masculine, which is something that frightens them (by them, I mean people who don't agree when gender, gender identity, and sex don't match).  Then I thought back to all the toys I had ever owned and found it odd how most of them were baby dolls and kitchen sets. Don't get me wrong, I loved them, but I found it odd how I was a baby myself, pretending to take care of other babies. This upset me a great deal because I don't want children, and it confused me as to why I liked taking care of a fake baby as a child. Likely because I didn't know the reality of it, but also likely because it was something advertised to me. I also think that the toys kind of give the idea of specific jobs each gender should aim to have in the future. For example, there are a lot of toys for girls having to do with taking care of others besides the baby dolls, such as toys that are to pretend to be nurses, which is a typically underpaid job position for the amount of work they do. For boys, there is a lot more construction play, pretend pilots, firefighters, and police officers, which are all powerful socially. This adds to patriarchy in that they usually push the idea of boys needing to be strong and protectors, while girls get pushed into the ideas of having babies and learning to cook and clean. This also leans into how a lot of toys marketed towards boys are more violent, like toy guns, and girl toys are all about friendship and taking care of others, something related to showing empathy and kindness. Something I had not noticed that was pointed out was the fact that kids learn that mom does the shopping for everyone else in the family, another form of domestic housework. Of course, like every other aspect of our lives, toys are also connected to the topic of social class. A lot of higher-class parents see toys as an opportunity for learning rather than fun. I have noticed this because I have an aunt who is a nanny for a wealthy family, and all of the toys she has bought for her own daughter have mostly been to teach her something in some form. An example would be buying books at an age where the kids can't even read yet, just to get them used to hearing the adult read to them and pronounce words. On the other hand, working-class parents go with a "natural growth" approach towards their kids and focus more on them having fun and typically being able to entertain themselves. They also tend to give their children the things they want to prove to others that they are "good parents" and that they do enough for their children, which I feel is a slippery slope because it could create children who are spoiled. Something I didn't expect was children's role in social stratification. This can be seen when typically white middle-class women treat toy store workers, who are usually other people of color, as valets and expect them to be at the tips of their fingers, ready at their whim. Seeing this, the children develop a sense of entitlement, which they can carry for the rest of their lives. Something that companies have started doing is advertising towards children instead of parents, especially since some kids have control of their money, such as allowances, but also because children now have more influence over how their parents spend their money. Something I feel is very true is that consumption is essential to everyday life for children because they use it as a means to fit in with everyone else at school, which, up until you graduate high school, is practically your entire life. That is where you meet most, if not all, of your friends, and where your social life stems from.

# data[].attributes.headline
4/9 -  (JCB)   Chapter 11: Beauty/Ideology and Intersectionality

# data[].attributes.subject
4/9 -  (JCB)   Chapter 11: Beauty/Ideology and Intersectionality

# data[].attributes.body
I'm part of the generation that has been around social media since we were kids, and because of this, we have also been exposed to what celebrities look like and the beauty standards they push forward. I looked up beauty, and the results were different from the ones shown in the book, likely because it was done many years ago. When I looked up the word, there were a lot more women of color and more images of only makeup products and not people. The only thing similar to the results of the books was the fact that men didn't show up at all. The idea of beauty relating directly to femininity has resulted in women feeling an incredible amount of pressure to conform to beauty standards and buy countless products to achieve their goal. I think the idea that beauty is thin and pale has become somewhat less normalized and sought after, at least in the US, but that could be only based on where I reside. Appearance ideals aren't natural and are based on cultural and historical context. I've seen a plethora of examples throughout my life. It's well known that in the United States, most people are obsessed with having straight white teeth. In a history class in high school, I learned about a time in history in Japan where the beauty standard was having black teeth. That was desired and seen as one of the most beautiful aspects of a woman back then. In present-day Japan, there is a trend where crooked teeth are seen as cute and youthful. A way that socially constructed ideals heavily impact material realities is through skin-bleaching products. In lots of places around the world, dark skin is not considered beautiful, so people have the desire to lighten their skin. Companies take advantage of this and create products that contain harsh and likely toxic chemicals with no regard for the safety of consumers, continuing to advertise that they have a solution to their problems. These products have become immensely popular and have given these corporations millions of dollars for their desire to fit into the beauty standard of their social location. This is why I think it is very important for famous women who don't fit the beauty standard to embrace their differences because it makes younger girls who look up to them realize that looking different is okay. It's not a solution whatsoever to the unrealistic standards for women, but I think it helps lessen the pressure to conform. The fact that Dove used women feeling empowered to sell more products seems sort of sinister. It uses a feminist critique of beauty standards while also promoting consumerism, which doesn't seem right. Even though the message did get spread and the campaign worked in the sense that a lot of women saw it, it's a multimillion-dollar company, so it's likely all they cared about was making the money. After reading that it has ties to Fair & Lovely, a skin-brightening product, I stand corrected. Something seen time and time again has been that the elite's are always trying to be different from the lower classes. In this chapter, it's seen through fashion and how when common people begin copying their fashion, they always change it in order to stay different. I think fashion today is less reliant on how a certain class dresses and more on creativity and originality. Trends have recently taken over and become repetitive, so people who are really into fashion typically crave originality and put an immense amount of effort into their style in order to stand out from the masses. Some specific cultural ideals of attractiveness that encourage me to buy products include clearer skin and makeup. I've always had clear skin when most of my friends and peers were in their teenage acne phase, and because of that and how much they would talk about my clear skin, it had become part of my identity. I was known as the one who always had perfect skin among my friends and among other peers as well. I'm now 19, and I've only started to get acne. It's been a struggle because, like I said, having clear skin has become such a big part of my identity that I've felt like I've lost that part of myself in an odd way. It's a strange feeling, and I don't like it, so I've 100% bought into the clearer skin ideal. I've spent probably hundreds of dollars in order to prevent acne and reverse the damage it has already caused. One way that broader beauty norms have been rejected is by my older family members, specifically my mom. In younger generations and due to my social location, a big standard for women is to have larger body parts, such as a larger buttocks or chest. Because of this, there have been a couple of times I have been sad about not having certain qualities, and my mom has asked me what was wrong. I told her, and every time without fail, she would get all riled up and upset because she couldn't wrap her head around why I would ever want to be bigger or have fuller parts of my body. In her generation, the standard was to be so thin you could look sick, and all of you had to be thin, not just certain areas. She doesn't understand how times have changed.

# data[].attributes.body
The only thing that is biological is one's sex organs; nothing else. When it comes to expressing our "maleness" or "femaleness," the way we express ourselves is part of our social inheritance. From the very beginning, our parents separate us into two worlds once they learn what sex organs we have while still in our mother's womb. Then boys are assigned the color blue. Parents will dress their boys in clothing that will be sturdy enough to withstand the rough play and the tumbles boys take. They are given toys like guns, trucks, and tanks, which set the stage for their future masculinity. The mother warns about breaking the toys, but deep down she doesn't seem very bothered by it. Her son can see that and is able to take advantage because he knows that even if she doesn't completely encourage the behavior, she excuses it with the famous saying, "Boys will be boys." This phrase always disgusts me, as it is often used as an excuse for when boys are vile humans towards girls and other boys. When they bully girls by pulling their hair or sometimes sexually assaulting them, the excuse is that they are boys, and that is what boys do. Or the excuse that when a boy has a crush on a girl, they bully them, which is somehow supposed to make the girl feel better because the bully likes her. Henslin then talks about the freedom boys experience through rough play and how they test their parents tolerance. They can get dirty to an extent, shout, yell, and be boisterous without being punished. They can push the limit until they are punished and realize where the line is in their parents tolerance. Then they can go around those boundaries and become experts at getting away with things when the circumstances allow them. They learn that the world of girls is different from theirs—more dainty, quiet, and stricter. They are girls, and so they are fundamentally different from boys; they can't do the same things and can never fully enter the boy world, and the boys would never want to enter the girl's world anyway because of the restrictions and because they just aren't girls and will never be. Because of the abundance of freedom they experience, they learn to lie and deceive and do anything before telling the truth if they break the rules, since anything is better than the punishment of having their freedom taken away. Everything around them pushes the idea that there are two separate worlds: their world and the girl's world. The evidence points to theirs being the superior one. All of this also creates a sort of brotherhood, and any boy who doesn't fit into the masculine standard is seen as "sissy" and makes the other members of the brotherhood uncomfortable. This is because a "sissy" is a boy who is like a girl, which they are not and will never be. This makes them different and leads to the boys hating them intensely, especially because they bring shame to the rest of the brotherhood. Then puberty hits, and girls begin changing in one way and boys change in another way, separating their worlds further and further apart. They then begin to realize that they have to act differently around girls than around boys. They have to be polite and more gentle, things that they are not, so it feels like they cannot be themselves around girls, making them feel as though they have to wear a mask around them. They learn that to get what they want, they have to meet the expectations of the person who holds what they want. Even as they grow older, this idea of having to pretend to be things to get what they want from people, specifically women, continues to be proven true. But they always have their "man world" they can crawl back to whenever the demands of being intimate become too much. Only some ever overcome these things and are able to get girlfriends and wives. Henslin ends the reading by saying how this entire process is not one that goes well with marriage. This honestly made a lot of sense as to why men who are raised in such a way are never able to be close to women. They have been raised their entire lives believing that men and women are so different that they could never understand each other, which is false. How could a man raised the way explained in the book ever fall in love with a woman? They are taught to disapprove of and dislike anything to do with femininity and often only like the sexual gratification women provide. This isn't enough to fall in love with someone and want to get married to them. I am not a boy, so this chapter really helped me understand how it is possible for those types of men who deceive and use women easily come to be.

# data[].attributes.body
Eder first begins discussing the scene at Woodview Middle School where the cheerleading tryouts are being done. The teacher told the judges to pay attention to the girl's weight, adding that if they didn't like the way the girls looked, the people watching the school games wouldn't want to see them either. To represent the school well, they had to have a good appearance. This is already creating a situation where the girls are unknowingly being judged not only on their skill set but also on their looks. The girls were also told to cover up any discomfort or pain with a smile. This reminded me of the common occurrence of men telling women to smile more. I also hate that it sort of pushes the narrative of women having to hide negative emotions with a smile instead of showing them. Maybe it's not that deep in this sense, but I feel like it's reminiscent of women working and being expected to look pretty doing it. Then we get into a ranking some of the boys made. The girls pointed out the fact that most of the girls at the top of this list were there due to already having a figure. Rankings such as that one give the impression to girls that they are always being evaluated, watched, and judged. Gossip was a big part of the girls social lives and also caused them to be more subconscious about their appearance, likely because since they gossiped about others, they likely assumed others gossiped about them too. They spoke a lot about body weight and put a lot of importance on it, which only makes sense when they know that everyone else is judging them for it as well. There was a lot of contradiction too, which I assume is from the pressure they feel about their appearances. They would talk about girls who were fat but also about girls who were too skinny. They also talked about girls who tried too hard to be pretty or sexy, but they also spoke about girls who didn't seem to care about their appearance. Nothing was ever good enough, which I think reflects how they feel about themselves. This becomes toxic very quickly in the sense that girls start blaming each other for drawing sexual attention to themselves instead of blaming the social practices that push a view of girls and women as sexual objects. Over all, these practices force the narrative that who girls are is less important than how they look. This can cause a lot of self-worth issues in the future if they aren't already experiencing them. It will make girls feel as though it doesn't matter how hard they can succeed in life; their worth will amount to nothing unless they are beautiful.

# data[].attributes.headline
4/12 - (H) Thorne & Luria, Sexuality and Gender....

# data[].attributes.subject
4/12 - (H) Thorne & Luria, Sexuality and Gender....

# data[].attributes.body
I'm sure most people never realized how early on scripts became a thing for girls and boys up until this chapter. We get to understand how many actions prepare children for the sexual scrips in adulthood and for gender roles. The chapter begins by giving us examples of how, when elementary school children have control over their school activities, they naturally separate themselves by gender. At lunch, boys and girls have separate tables, which they are all aware of, and in play spaces, boys typically take up fields and basketball courts, while girls hang out in the jungle gym area and cement for things like hopscotch and jump rope. Boys usually play in larger, more publicly visible groups, and their play style is more aggressive, competitive, and hierarchical. They also use words like captain and team even when not playing sports. Girls usually have smaller groups or friendship pairs and are more likely to play games that involve taking turns, like jump rope, and they participate in organized sports just not as much as boys. Both genders know dirty words, but boys flaunt their use of them much more often than girls while risking punishment. Dirty words, sports, and testing the limits are part of what boys teach to other boys. Adults around the children are much less likely to discipline a boy group because they might be unsuccessful and it might seem unfair. Girls are more likely to follow reasonable rules, and when they do break them, they typically are on a much smaller scale due to the smaller size of girl groups and adults likeliness of using said rules on girls who seem to believe in them. Overall, a single or a pair of boys don't hold much power and will be disciplined, whereas a group of boys holds more power and is less likely to be disciplined. This makes girls easier to control, and boys are also saved by anonymity by passing around blame. The rule-breaking creates a level of excitement, and with the added risk of being caught, it creates bonds among boys. Up until this point, everything said specifically about girls has been pretty accurate, based on what I remember from my elementary school days. Moving forward, pornography is explicitly forbidden in school and home life, so the sharing of it among boys is in the context of rule-breaking. This leads to the idea that scripting in the same gender groups is more about gender than sexual orientation. As the use of words like "fag" and "queer" increases with age, cuddling touch among boys decreases, likely also because of the teaching of homophobia. On the other hand, girls don't usually organize themselves into large groups like boys; instead, they are usually in pairs and use the title of "best friend" often. They also discover networks of potential friends in case their main friendships fall apart. When interacting with other girls, girls tend to use gentle touches, move physically close to each other, make cuddly touches, and play with each other's hair. They make comments about each other's clothing or haircuts, and best friends often monitor each other's emotions. They also use self-disclosure, as in telling each other trusted information or secrets to bond. They are also more focused on constructing intimacy and talking about their relationships. All of these things, including learning cues on who is nice and who is mean, provide them with useful skills for forming and leaving personal relationships. The bonds boys create by breaking rules, girls create by talking and giggling about certain guarded topics. I personally think this is true. I feel like girls way of bonding is more based on speaking with each other and vocalizing our feelings. Something that I had never thought about but that made complete sense when I read it is when Thorne and Luria wrote how girls learn about the romantic before the sexual and boys learn about the sexual before the romantic. This is especially true given how princess stories and movies about romance are told to young girls and watched by them. When speaking about heterosexually charged rituals, girls usually use kissing a boy as a threat to that boy. Cooties and the transmission of them is a form of cross-gender chasing. Sometimes boys threaten to kiss girls, but typically it is girls touch that is seen as contaminating, which is interesting. This is another thing that continues the creation of boundaries between boys and girls. These create assumptions that are created into sexual scripts later: girls and boys belong to too different and sometimes antagonistic groups; contact between both genders is contaminating and maybe sexual; and girls are more sexually outlined and polluting than boys. Most of the topics discussed in this chapter were things I knew started at a young age, but I didn't expect them to show up at such a young age. I thought it made sense for middle school and high school, but I was not expecting these things to be prevalent in elementary school. That was truly shocking. Also, some of these things prep girls for being seen as overtly more sexual than boys, which is a topic that I am not a fan of.

# data[].attributes.headline
4/12 - (H) Tannen, But What Do You Mean?

# data[].attributes.subject
4/12 - (H) Tannen, But What Do You Mean?

# data[].attributes.body
This chapter highlights the differences between how men and women communicate and how it affects both genders lives. Women's conversational rituals are made to take the other person's feelings into consideration, while men's conversational rituals are to keep a one-up position or at least not appear to be one-down. Women often apologize a lot more than men, and people (typically men) tell them to stop doing that, but it's because apologies are seen differently by both genders. For men, it is seen as putting oneself down, while for women, it is sometimes an automatic way of keeping both of the participants in the conversation on equal footing. But if the woman is the only one apologizing, it can feel as though she's taking the blame for something that wasn't her fault, and when she's only partially to blame, it looks like she's taking the full blame, which is also why men often see it as the woman putting herself down. This is why it is important to make sure you keep track of how often you are apologizing and base it on the reactions you get to the apology. Women also typically use softer words and ways of putting it when it comes to criticism, while men are more curt and straight to the point. There is no "better" way of giving critiques; it all depends on the person giving and receiving them. Additionally, women often use thank-you's as openers and closers to conversations, another part of their conversational rituals. It is up to the other person to restore the balance by also thanking them for the same thing or something different. Men usually expect their ideas to be fought through verbal opposition to show any weak points there might be, and so they will do the same to others as a way of helping. If you are not used to it, instead of making you think clearly, it will make you doubt your own ideas. When it comes to praise, for women, praise is to be said, and if you have nothing good to say, don't say it at all, as men might believe that you are not doing anything wrong unless you are informed. "Troubles talk" is a way of forming rapport with a college. It is when you complain about something small, which makes you seem like just a person, and others respond with a similar complaint, which puts you both on a similar level. Men will hear an issue as a request for a solution. This is something I've experienced before, as have a lot of other women I know. Sometimes we complain about small things just to complain about them and converse, but if done with a man, he will usually give us a logical solution when in reality we just want to talk about something or want emotional comfort. Lastly, when it comes to jokes and humor, reports show that men typically form humor by teasing, razzing, and mock-hostile attacks, while with women it is mock self-deprecation. This leads to women seeing men's humor as actually hostile and men viewing women's humor as truly putting themselves down. I have noticed this in the way I interact with my different-gender friends. With my female friends, I never tease them and usually use self-deprecating humor, and they do the same. I don't think I could tease my female friends the way I do my male friends without being taken seriously and feeling terrible. With my guy friends, the only way we really use humor is by teasing each other. We usually say mean things about each other, but we know we are just joking around.

# data[].attributes.headline
4/16 - (H) Katz, The importance of being Beautiful

# data[].attributes.subject
4/16 - (H) Katz, The importance of being Beautiful

# data[].attributes.body
One's appearance has a greater impact on our lives than I could have ever imagined. I knew about pretty privilege, but I didn't expect it to affect so many important aspects of life, even when it comes to sentencing. I know judges and juries are human, and the whole system was set up by people, but I don't know why I always assumed biases were never a factor in court hearings and trials. In the beginning of the chapter, Katz provides us with a list of things that are given to you if you are beautiful. You easily gain friends and lovers; you are given higher grades than smarter, conventionally unattractive peers; you are able to compete for jobs with others who are more qualified than you; and you get promoted more often. Next, we are told about the "halo effect," which is that when you are beautiful, people are more likely to associate you with good traits like being trustworthy, sociable, modest, generous, sensitive, interesting, and sexually responsive. If you are unattractive, you are more likely to be seen as mean, sneaky, dishonest, and antisocial. This is not limited to adults; children are also victims of this effect. The study described in the chapter was about university female students assessing the seriousness of the child's crime. The results showed that the opinions of the adults were very much influenced by the child's level of attractiveness. When presented with pictures of children with a "high" level of physical attractiveness, they were met with claims made by students believing the child was charming, well mannered, and their crime shouldn't be taken as seriously. When presented with pictures of a child with a "low" level of physical attractiveness, the child was seen as bratty, a fighter, and a real problem. This presents important issues as teachers could also prejudge children based on their appearance, which makes them treat the child as having negative traits, which can lead the child to respond by conforming to the teacher's expectations. The biggest shocker is that the "halo effect" is also often seen in sentencing by courts. It was found that "neat"-looking defendants were fined less than "messy"-looking ones. The beautiful are assumed to be innocent. In early life, babies who are more attractive are doted on more often. They are picked up more, held more, and given more attention than unattractive babies, who may be subjects to neglect and rejection. This can have a large impact on their personality and mental health. One nursery school study showed that unattractive children are not as well liked as their other attractive classmates and are more likely to be seen as scary. In school, teachers are likely to see more attractive children as having higher IQs, being more likely to go to college, and having parents who hold more interest in higher education. This is something parents should be worried about because if the teacher assumes these things about attractive children, it will likely cause the teacher to give extra attention to these students, therefore giving them a boost in their education that other students will not receive. In college, it seems as though attractiveness is important and a bigger factor than anything else when going on a date. Even when people believed they placed a higher priority on their ideal partner's qualities, the study showed that it was actually attractiveness that mattered to them. Also, something important mentioned is that unattractive people are not discriminated against only because they have to be extraordinary with their skills or work, while attractive people can get by with below-par work or skills. Furthermore, attractive people tend to be more social or have larger social groups, which then leads them to meet more people, which makes finding lovers easier. Then there is the "generalized halo effect," which is when people who are romantically linked to an attractive person will likely be associated with the traits of that person. Tall men are also seen as dynamic, decisive, powerful, and natural leaders. Beauty also makes it easier to create rapport in careers. It also even extends into old age, where more attractive elders are given better care by doctors and caregivers. They are seen as more cooperative, more motivated, and likely to get better quicker. This is surprising to me because I thought that maybe at some point one's attractiveness wouldn't matter anymore, but it seems like it always does.

# data[].attributes.headline
4/16 - (H) Miller, Women in the Military

# data[].attributes.subject
4/16 - (H) Miller, Women in the Military

# data[].attributes.body
This chapter's content is based on various field research projects on active-duty Army soldiers in the 1990s. We are informed on how, when powerful groups are on top, the powerless have ways of resisting and overthrowing those with power. The more power is exerted from the top, the more the bottom is able to mask the resistance in the form of gossip, rumors, mass defiance, etc. This is widely seen in the Army, except that it is the dominant group of men doing those things instead of the less powerful group of women. Men put a lot of energy into defying female coworkers and commanders through things like name-calling, spreading rumors, and sabotage. Women don't seem to do any of those from their side of things or from men's point of view. Military men also frequently claim they are unjustly constrained or controlled by military women. I hadn't realized that what some women experience is called gender harassment, which is when the harassment is not sexual but instead is used to reinforce traditional gender roles. It's a way to undermine women's advances in gaining power or to say that that power is illegitimately gained. An example is a man refusing to follow commands from a commander simply because she is a woman. It is sad to see because it actually affects women just as much as sexual harassment and can interfere with their day-to-day lives just as much; it can prevent promotions, affect their ability to do their work, and interfere with their private lives. It is also frustrating to learn about because since most of the meetings and attempts to stop harassment towards women are focused only on sexual harassment, any other type of harassment is overlooked and ignored. Some forms of gender harassment include resistance to authority, which is when men just refuse to answer to a woman; constant scrutiny, which is when men catch women's mistakes and use them to criticize all women's abilities; gossip and rumors, which are another form; and typically, the topic is women's sex lives. Sabotage was one of two of the scariest forms of gender harassment I read in this chapter. Sabotage was mostly seen in fields that are nontraditional for women, which means they are typically strenuous and dangerous, so the sabotage of equipment could be life-threatening. The last one talked about in this chapter was indirect threats, the second terrifying form of gender harassment, in which some soldiers reported that if women entered infantry or armor units, they would be raped. Many men use gender harassment because they don't want times to change or because they personally prefer traditional gender norms. It's a way of pushing women back into their "natural" roles to make sure that all soldiers on the field do their jobs correctly. Some men also believe that women are the privileged ones and are given way too many advantages without fulfilling the requirements of the roles they fill. The research shows that most of the men in support of women filling combat roles only do so because they are sure they will fail, which is called "hostile proponents" of women in combat. Their whole idea is that if women and men are treated equally, which is what they believe the women want, they should be because the women won't be able to handle it anyway and will fail. The article then goes into detail on the men who believe they are the disadvantaged group in the military, which then leads them to use resistance strategies. The first reason these men believe women are at an advantage is because they are given easier physical training standards. Most men and women believe that it is easier for women to meet the female standard than it is for men to meet their standard. They also see pregnancy as an advantage since they deem it unfair that women have an honorable way out of the service. Also because they don't have to do anything physical during the nine months of pregnancy. The other way women have an advantage is seemingly because of the better educational opportunities provided for them, which in turn leads to a better chance of getting promotions. Additionally, some believe that women learning specialized skills and going to school for them is a waste because they aren't legally able to perform their duty in the event of war. They are also exempted from doing grunt work and get assigned better assignments. This, I understand, sounds unfair, but the idea of women not having to do the hard grunt dirty work because men can do it is pushed by the same ideals of traditional gender roles they themselves are pushing for. Paternalism, allowing women to get away with more, is another. Men complained that women get away with more because of their sex. Both men and women try to bend the rules in their own ways, but women get away with it more often, using cramps from menstruation as an excuse. Another problem is that male commanders enforce rules differently for women and men. They might view women as fragile or see that a form of chivalry is appropriate. They also sometimes fear disciplining women the way they do with men in fear of harassment accusations. Additionally, many are too embarrassed or flustered with women's underwear or hygiene to perform the rituals of privacy invasion men have to undergo. Just because the consequences of sexual harassment are widely known in the military does not mean that they are erased. Men just find other ways to express themselves, if not directly, then indirectly through other things like race or sexual orientation. I don't think the suppression of sexist, racist, and homophobic speech makes the people being suppressed victims and is not even comparable to the victims of the suppression of minority voices. In no other professional field is it okay to voice such hateful speech, and even though it has become normalized in the military culture, I don't believe it should be okay just because the oppressors feel like the oppressed.

# data[].attributes.body
I didn't go to a store dedicated to toys since there aren't many in my local area but I went to a target and looked through the toy sections. The most notable thing was how the "boy" toys and "girl" toys are separated by aisles. The other big difference was how different the colors of the toys and their packaging was. The boys packaging over all had darker colors like blue, black, and red whereas the toys marketed towards girls were lighter and brighter with colors like hot or light pink, purple, if there was any blue it was very light. This is how we are able to tell what sex it is marketed towards, by the colors and most importantly if the packaging has children paying with the toy, it will correspond to who it is marketed towards. There were some gender neutral toys and their packaging colors were usually green or yellow bit both girls and boys shown on the packaging or none at all.

# data[].attributes.body
Women: 38

Men: 12

White: 30

Black: 8

East Asian: 6

South Asian: 5

Undetermined/ mixed: 1

Visible body fat: 3

What I gather from this is that women are more depicted in fashion magazines which makes sense since beauty is more often associated with femininity and women. Also, white individuals are still shown in the majority of media even though I believe it has gotten better than let's say a decade ago, but it is not equal to how often people of color are shown. Lastly, body fat is known shown a lot in magazines especially in fashion one's since individuals bodies are what the main focus which is clothing sit on. Like people's race, people with a lot of body fat have started to be shown more in the media but sill not a lot compared to people with little to no body fat.

# data[].attributes.headline
4/19 -  (JCB) Chapter 8: White Wedding/Marriage and the Family

# data[].attributes.subject
4/19 -  (JCB) Chapter 8: White Wedding/Marriage and the Family

# data[].attributes.body
The topic of marriage has always been an exciting one. I, like most young girls, have dreamt of their special day. When I was younger, I was influenced by the Disney Princess movies, which often ended with the girl marrying a prince. Although I was aware I wouldn't actually end up marrying a prince, I took it as a symbol of how one day I'd marry someone who I saw as the love of my life and how, in turn, they would indeed be a prince, at least in my eyes, which is all that mattered. Sometimes I miss the innocence of that way of thinking because I've been exposed to reality. The reality is that I will inevitably encounter heartbreak, how not every person I date will be "the one," how I might never actually end up in a marriage, or how I might and it won't work out decades later and end up getting divorced. When I think of family, the first thought that comes to mind is my family. My mom, brother, and sister-in-law. My parents separated when I was very young in the lower grades of elementary school, and even though I saw and spoke to my dad every day since he would take me to and from school and every weekend until middle school, in recent times since I moved away from the Bay Area, which is where my dad still resides, I don't see him as often, and we rarely chat. Whenever I tell anyone I'm hanging out with my family, it usually entails my mom, brother, sister-in-law, and my nephews, and it's easier to say family instead of listing them all. Because of this, my brain doesn't associate my father with the word family. If I ever go visit my friends for the weekend and I see him, I just say I'm visiting my dad or hanging out with him. Other than thinking of my own family, when I think of family, I picture a nuclear one with a father, mother, and kids, likely because I grew up with that almost being my reality and it being the "standard" for families. The chapter then goes into how marriages for most of history have not been based on love and finding your soulmate but instead held other purposes such as keeping the bloodline going, producing male heirs, economic concerns, and having children to work and create additional income. The cult of domesticity is something I've recently seen rise of especially on social media. It's worse than in the 1950s, in my opinion, because the economy is horrible at this moment. People have a hard time finding and even keeping jobs, not to mention regular paying jobs are not enough for men to provide for their entire families yet the cult of domesticity has been rising and the number of men wanting stay at home mothers has increased. Most families can't afford a stay-at-home parent, and even when both parents work, the woman typically still has the mental and physical load of taking care of the home and children, which is not fair at all. This has been another reality that I have been exposed to growing up, which has made the dream of a happy marriage sound like it will likely stay only a dream. The more I read this chapter, the more it exposed to me how a wedding day being so special and favored by the bride makes it feel exciting to her. It was made this way in order to somewhat distract her from what is actually happening, which makes sense since in past times marriages were more likely to be arranged and done for outside purposes and not out of love, which would make the marriage an unhappy, miserable one. When it comes to the cost of weddings, it is crazy to think that the average cost is more than what the average American earns in a year. Also, I've heard of wedding taxes, where an additional tax is added to a service only based on the fact that it is for a wedding, which is crazy. I've heard that having a destination wedding is cheaper than having one in the States, and you get more services for a lower cost, which sounds appealing. The downside is that you can't invite that many people since most people might not want to pay for plane tickets or the expenses that come with traveling for a wedding unless the bride and groom are going to pay for it all. I've been aware of the fact that the white dress symbolizes purity and virginity, which I don't like the importance places on those two ideas, but I like the white wedding dress because of how it's becoming a tradition. Something that was mentioned in this chapter that made me pause and think was that there is little, if any, representation of women of color in wedding magazines or media relating to brides and weddings. I paused because, if it wasn't a celebrity or someone in the public eye, I realized I had never seen women of color in wedding dresses that were used to advertise them. I think that a diamond ring is such a potent symbol of a wedding because of tradition and because it symbolizes how much money the groom is willing to spend on the bride, sort of putting a price on the "love" he holds for her. I don't think that greater knowledge of the diamond industry would change its cultural prominence because it is such a deep part of the tradition that I don't think anything will change it.

# data[].attributes.headline
  4/22 - (H)  Coontz, The American Family

# data[].attributes.subject
  4/22 - (H)  Coontz, The American Family

# data[].attributes.body
The times have definitely gotten better over the last 100 years. Children in the late 1800s used to work full time, leaving little to no time at all for schooling, leaving only 6 percent of children to graduate high school. Not to mention the factories they used to work at, leaving them and any adult with terrible health problems, especially for growing children. I have heard typically older people and surprisingly young people talk about how perfect things were in the 1950s. It was good compared to the past events of the Great Depression and World War II since the GI Bill gave men college education and money for a house. They were able to provide for their families without extended family help. Which all sounds ideal unless you aren't white and middle class. There is a dark side to the 1950s, which was filled with coercion, discrimination, and censorship. While yes, a lot of people were able to move out of poverty, poverty was more prevalent than in the last three recessions that have occurred. Not to mention how poor the mental health of the housewives was, with high levels of anxiety and depression. Juvenile delinquency was a major issue, and while the drugs of the time before had been outlawed, most children grew up in households that abused alcohol, which would also lead to abuse. Children born out of wedlock also rose, but mothers would give up their children or leave town and come back, so no one would notice. Children who were mentally handicapped were held in institutions instead of being with their families. Doctors didn't recognize the spread of sexually transmitted diseases in young girls as sexual abuse and instead claimed it was caused by toilet seats, which created a wide-spread myth that some still believe to this day. They also didn't take incest reports seriously. Rape within marriage was legal, domestic abuse towards women was not taken seriously by authorities, and neither was child abuse. One reason why these issues that still occur today, but in a smaller amount, seem worse is because they are no longer acceptable and can no longer be swept under the rug. Another reason is that we now, as a society, hold higher expectations for marriage and parenting, which is a good thing. This chapter also talks about how, even though women spend less time with their children than in the early 1900s, men's time with children has increased, and since people now a days have fewer children, they are able to give the ones they do have more attention. Something I didn't know was that once child labor was abolished, women began entering the work force once again, something that the type of people who claim the 1950s were just so much better than our society today fail to realize. The idea that women have to self-sacrifice everything for their children is one I have never agreed with, coming from someone whose mother did sacrifice her life and her future for her children. While I am grateful for everything she has done, it breaks my heart knowing my mother thought she had to do all of that in order to be a good mother. I definitely would have been happier knowing having me and my brother didn't require such horrible sacrifices from her, so I agree that children do better when their mothers are happy with their lives.

# data[].attributes.headline
4/26 - Required entry: JCB Wedding Dreams

# data[].attributes.subject
4/26 - Required entry: JCB Wedding Dreams

# data[].attributes.body
I have for sure fantasized about my future wedding, and it started when I was a little girl. Like I said in my first entry of this week, what influenced me most was Disney Princess movies. My favorite movie when I was a little girl, and one of my favorites to this day, is Princess and the Frog. That movie, and most like it, would all end with a grand, beautiful, and magical wedding. The extravagance and beauty of it all was what appealed to me most, as was the fact that that special day would be about me. I usually don't like being the center of attention on a day-to-day basis since I have severe social anxiety, but being surrounded by family, all of whom I know and trust, never scared me. Also, the idea of finding a soulmate, someone you want to spend the rest of your life with was and still is something I want to experience. I never really thought of the price of it until now that I've become an adult and frequently think about money. I guess I sort of assumed everyone, including myself, would have enough money for a big, grand wedding. My mom always spoke about how, when I have a husband, so and so, but she never really spoke about the actual wedding day or anything like that.

# data[].attributes.headline
4/26 - (H) Henslin, Eating Your Friends is the Hardest

# data[].attributes.subject
4/26 - (H) Henslin, Eating Your Friends is the Hardest

# data[].attributes.body
In this chapter, we get a retelling of the events that transpired in the Andes Mountains in the early 1970s. The case of the Uruguayan rugby team whose plane crashed in the enormous mountain range, where nothing can typically survive. I am an avid true crime podcast listener, and I learned about this situation years ago. More recently, I watched the movie The Society of the Snow, which is a really well done film that was worked on by the actual survivors. Henslin then goes into detail on how this event reflects sociology, which was helpful. We know that our world is socially constructed and that means that nothing has built in meanings, we humans are the ones who have given everything around us meaning which in turn means we work together as people to decide on what meanings to give to things. Also, because of this, we can change the meanings if we decide to do so. A big aspect of this is that when situations change, meanings can change too. In the mountains, the survivors saw the dead bodies as human, so they needed to be treated with respect, but they were also no longer a person as the spirit or soul was gone the moment they died. Because of the meanings they held prior to the crash, changing them did not come easily, nor do changes to meanings in general happen easily. When someone proposes a change, the reactions can be shock, disgust, shunning, ostracism, and even violence. If the person can slowly start getting people on the same page, then the meaning changes and it becomes a new reality. Canessa was able to do this successfully as he slowly introduced the idea to only his close friends at first, which was met with resistance since it violated their previous meanings and norms. But because he was a medical student, his friends had a lot of trust in him and eventually agreed with him. It then spread to the other survivors, who were again resisting, but with the threat of death looming over their heads, the new definition won. We do what our definitions allow, and in this situation, it means them allowing each other to eat those who had already passed. They were also able to sort themselves on the basis of inequality, for example, by allowing those who were doing more strenuous activities, such as searching for ways to get help, to eat more since they needed more energy. They also assigned themselves roles; some people would select bodies, some would cut them up, some would cook them, and some would hand them out. It is also possible to see yourself as a good person while doing deviant activities. If you can change the meaning of that activity to not being something deviant, then you can keep a good sense of self. People also have a need to justify their actions to others, which means making definitions fit into a way that others will accept them. I've always heard that whenever you have a large group of people surviving in dire situations, they become something that resembles a small society, and I believe that with fewer people, it is easier to see how socially constructed we are as people.

# data[].attributes.headline
4/29 - Zimbardo, The Pathology of Imprisonment

# data[].attributes.subject
4/29 - Zimbardo, The Pathology of Imprisonment

# data[].attributes.body
This chapter tells us about an experiment done by Zimbardo, which basically replicated a small prison with prisoners and guards and showed how quickly these previously normal college students changed their attitudes toward each other. The guards became cruel and held a tyrannical type of power over the prisoners. Even though there hadn't been any crimes committed, the guards lost compassion for the prisoners and began treating them like animals, and even some took pleasure in their pain. The prisoners couldn't sleep, eat, or go to the bathroom without permission, which is something that can strip away their humanity since they have no sense of freedom at all. They also mistreated them to the point where the prisoners could only think of their escape and the hatred they began to feel for the guards. Both sides seemed to forget it was an experiment, and their mindsets began shifting into the type of mindset common in real prisons. The experiment was called off only a few days into it, and it was called off because Zimbardo faced the horror of realizing that he could've easily been a guard who became evil or a prisoner who felt less than human. An important message I got from this chapter is that most people can be forced into doing horrible things when put in psychologically compelling situations regardless of their ethics, morals, beliefs, or anything that typically keeps people from acting cruel and unjust to others, or, in other words, going against social norms. The topic of prisons is something that I've thought about quite a few times in my life. Most of my life, I thought prisons were a punishment for those who have committed crimes since so many people are afraid of them, how horrible some prison conditions are and how those who reside there are treated. I never knew they were supposed to reform prisoners until later in my life. The idea of putting people in these terrible conditions where they are constantly fearing and fighting for their lives is astonishing. I feel like it's common sense as to why they aren't being reformed in these conditions, but not everyone sees it that way, unfortunately. I also agree with what was said towards the end of the chapter, where Zimbardo speaks about how these institutions should be closely watched by having someone other than the guards, where they can't influence or scare them into keeping quiet about how they act, watch the prisons, and be able to report any human rights violations directly to the courts. The fact that people sometimes come out of prisons even worse than they were going in says a lot about how this system is just not working. It needs serious reforming because at this point it is not only letting hundreds of people be abused, but these people come out more mentally unstable and possibly pose more of a threat to the public, which is the opposite of what should be happening.

# data[].attributes.headline
5/3 - (H) Hunt, Police Accounts of Normal Force

# data[].attributes.subject
5/3 - (H) Hunt, Police Accounts of Normal Force

# data[].attributes.body
This chapter focuses on what external factors cause police from around the globe to commit brutal acts. Where police draw the line for what is considered brutality and what is normal force is found to be different from where the courts and outside people would draw the line. Hunt spent a lot of time with the officers from Metro City P.D., even out on the streets, to observe them and their behaviors. Normal force is first taught to officers before they gain that title in the police academy. They are given tools and taught how to use them to subdue, control, and restrain suspects. However, those who have been in the force longer will teach the rookies how they need to get better tools since the ones provided for them point them out as newbies and don't work as well. Also, they quickly learn that you don't get well known or impress anyone by using the legal amount of force, but by being aggressive and using any means possible to subdue suspects. Being approved by their peers also lessens the guilt they experience from using excess force. Female cops are seen as weak physically and emotionally, which causes them to use excess force as a way to overcome these sexual biases. For street cops, it's worse to use too little force and be seen as someone who freezes up because the others will deem them an untrustworthy partner. Some cops use excuses, which is when they deny full responsibility but still recognize the problematic behavior while blaming something else for it. Adrenaline was something some cops blamed violence on. Usually, after an on-foot chase or car chase when their adrenaline is high, it always ends in violence because after the suspect runs, they want to kick them for fleeing, and the longer the chase, the angrier the officer gets. They also use situational justifications often when they are or feel threatened. In their view, anyone who challenges officers is appropriately subject to force. They will also see it appropriate to be aggressive, forceful, and violent towards certain types of offenders, such as cop killers, child abusers, pedophiles, junkies, and others. The worse the crimes of the offenders, the more morally justified the violence towards them is. Criminals that commit white-collar crimes and professional burglars are rarely subjected to force by officers, as are criminals whose mental state is so bad they cannot be blamed for their actions. Although a lot of the force is excusable, there is still a "normal" amount of force, meaning there is a time and place for excess force, and there are situations where excess force is not deemed accessible. In the end, the article speaks about how there is a moral dilemma on this topic. The academy teaches recruits a set of rules and when and where force is allowed to be used, but out on the streets, where situations aren't always in the textbook, it can be difficult to apply what you were taught in the academy.

# data[].attributes.headline
5/3 - Required entry: (Adapted from an assignment by Joyce Johnson)

# data[].attributes.subject
5/3 - Required entry: (Adapted from an assignment by Joyce Johnson)

# data[].attributes.body
Recently, I was driving back home after dropping off my nephew at preschool with my mom in the passenger seat and my one-year-old nephew in the backseat. As I was stopped at a red light, my mom pointed to the side walk on the other side of the street. I looked and saw a woman bent over in front of some sleeping bags and trash bags, as well as a man sitting on the floor next to those things, leaning against a chain link fence that was behind him. The woman had black pants on and nothing on her back, meaning she was shirtless. At first, I couldn't tell what the woman was doing, but then I noticed her rubbing her armpits with something. Then I saw some water bottles at her feet, and it seemed as though she was washing herself. The most obvious norm being violated was her being nude in public, especially with an elementary school so close by. I think that is one of the most obvious norms in our society. Also, people don't typically bathe or clean themselves in public; I feel like it's more of a personal, private activity. Being nude, or sometimes close to being nude, in public is looked down upon in most cases. I don't think this norm is very specific to sex and class, but maybe to age since I think it's more normal to see, for example, babies in just diapers in public, like at pools or parks, and I think in some cultures too, it's normal to see young boys and girls without shirts in public spaces, and it's not considered too weird. In some cultures too, people go to bath houses where they are in complete nude with others of the same sex. I think if, for example, someone has their clothing on fire and they have to strip, this is a situation where being naked in public is understandable. I don't think washing oneself naked in public ever has a situation where it would be seen as rational. I honestly cannot think of a situation where I would do what the woman was doing and not think of myself as weird. The thought about her being crazy didn't cross my mind because it was obvious she was homeless and she wasn't exactly behaving in an erratic way, which is what I typically associate with "crazy." I just found her odd and weird because she could have gone somewhere more private, like behind a bush or building, to do what she needed to or into a public bathroom, even though I'm not sure she would have been let in. At the same time, she could be totally sane and just not care to be nude in public, or she could not care if she got arrested since it's public indecency. Some people who live on the streets are only trying to survive, and some have nothing to lose, which I believe is the reason why some act in strange ways if they don't have some sort of mental disability or are on drugs. Me labeling her as weird didn't really affect me in many ways. I tried to understand her circumstances and not judge too hard since I didn't know her personally nor did I know her life story, so I just thought she was odd, felt some sympathy for her, and moved on with my day.

# data[].attributes.headline
5/6 - (H) Gracey,  Kindergarten as Academic Boot Camp

# data[].attributes.subject
5/6 - (H) Gracey,  Kindergarten as Academic Boot Camp