I agree that there are a lot of people who only look at what they need or want, and do not look at the “unfortunate” people. They could be from the rich or middle class. Reading how Ehrenreich did a challenge that changed her life and about her experience made me understand how you could feel and know the life of the poor and the struggles they go through. From trying to find a job to finding a place to live, and how some of them find a solution to their problems. In Ehrenreich's situation this is not her actual life, this is just for an experiment and she already feels how challenging and overwhelming it is just from two weeks of this life. With that low-wage job she could not hold two jobs at once for one person, so thinking about other people with families, or single mothers, that would be very challenging and needs hard work. This is unfair for these people. They aren’t being taken care of or not being helped. There are a lot of poor or “unfortunate” people around the world, and that comes from how people or people in high positions are not looking or fixing this problem. Two things that caught my attention in Ehrenreich experiment is when she started working two jobs. It was really hard for her even though that was not her actual life, and some people are forced to live like that, it is hard and challenging. The second thing is how she was living a good middle class life. Everything she needs is there, enjoying her lunch at a good  restaurant  and having a conversation about the “unfortunate” people and then taking on a challenge on finding out how their life is and what their challenges are. Reading about that topic and about her experience made me think again about how these people live their lives and hopefully, we see a change that makes their living good.

They say that the success of McDonald’s came from how their employees work or treat their customers, the expectations of people to their food, and their good service. I personally don’t like McDonald’s but I do see that it’s busy all day, so that shows that people do like it.  It wants both managers and workers to dedicate themselves to the values summed up in three letters, “QSC” Quality, Service, and Cleanness, are the rules of every company to succeed. I’ve never heard of Hamburger University, workers train in Hamburger U. They teach Intermediate operation course, the applied equipment course, and the advanced operation course. Also, there is a full training program with the required amount of hours of work. This is required for everyone who wishes to own a McDonald’s store and is recommended for store managers. I’ve never imagined that this process exists! It has many details like Learning the Job, they have to be sure that the Big Mac is the same everywhere in the world, “station operation check” a short but highly detailed job description that shows how much ketchup and mustard should go on each kind of hamburger, what is the correct way of putting salt on the fries, and more details. It has too many strict details that they don’t need, in my opinion. You can have a successful restaurant with rules, but not that much. Reading about McDonald’s system or service was new to me, but I still see that this method of Hamburger U. doesn’t have to be required. Going to culinary school or something similar is enough, and then you can learn how to cook or do the job when you go to the place you want to work in. I agree with the same taste all over the world, but it also depends on the food. 

Wishard pursued Drucker’s thoughts and wants to suggest why he believes that we’re living at probably the most critical turning point of human history. While reading about between two ages, Wishard pointed out many contrasts, from print communication to electronic communication and more. Ages pass by and people are the ones who decide what to do and how. For example, globalization. In Wishard’s view globalization represents the world’s best chance to enrich the lives of the greatest number of people. Globalization is about culture, tradition, and historic relationships. Globalization goes to the very physiological foundations of people. Also technology development. Technology has changed a lot of things, for the better and worse. The pros of technology are that it helped humans with a lot of things, in our normal life like communicating, in medical, and work. The cons are that people used it for bad things, like on social media, cybercrime, and others. Seeing how not long ago technology grew so fast and people got adapted to it. This is a change between the ages. While I read about technology development, I thought about artificial intelligence, and it also talked about robots and how smart they can be. I don’t disagree with that, but I don’t think that robots should or will do our “roles” like some work or other problem-solving. Spiritual and psychological reorientation. The best measure of America’s physiological and spiritual life isn’t public opinion. It’s the content and quality of our culture. Wishard talks about the long-term Spiritual and psychological reorientation being similar to what happened when the Greco-Roman era gave way to the start of the Feudal Age. Earlier in the 20th century, if a person had personal problems they would go talk to a priest or something similar for their advice. And gradually it changed through time, and people started going to their psychologists. And that points out how people keep changing through ages. Reading Wishard’s view made me realize how a lot can change through time and it all happens on how people do it and go through it.

Goods that we consume allow us to draw social boundaries and it also aligns us with certain kinds of people and distinguishes us from others.  One of Bourdieu’s key insights was that class inequalities are reproduced over time through consumption habits, and that consumption is a key way that elites attain a kind of status. Economic, social, and cultural are 3 forms of capital. Economic capital is straight forward, social capital refers to the value that comes from your social relationships and networks, and cultural capital is a concept of key importance for understanding consumption. All of these identify our taste and self-presentation, objectified in our possessions such as clothing, books, art, and gaining what we will gain by having a university or college education and degree. For example coffee, people drank coffee as part of their meal or day. But today, drinking or going out for coffee can mean more than one thing. Studying, meeting, relaxing, and it’s also a way to express the social status and cultural capital. Consumers are interested in ethical consumption options - coffee that they can feel good about drinking Because it is seen to “do good”. Ethical consumption could lead consumers to participate in consumer boycotts. One major buycott option for coffee consumers is to purchase fair-trade coffee. Fairtrade guarantees a stable price for producers. The fair trade is designed to ensure that the coffee farmers are paid an amount for their crop that is good for them and promotes their basic needs. Most of the coffee is grown in the global south, and most of that coffee is consumed in the countries of the global north. The average Starbucks coffee is $4 or $5. Consumers always look for high status goods for the cheapest possible price. I guess that’s how people are. But that doesn’t always work. For example coffee. It’s kind of expensive because when consumers pay for their drink they aren’t just paying for it, but they’re also paying for the clean and comfy place and the expensive espresso machine. Sadly none of the profit from these investments goes back to the coffee farmers, and this is wrong and unfair. The farmers are the ones who worked hard to grow the coffee and they don’t get paid fairly. Another example is diamonds or ruby. Poor or people in need work in mines to find the rare diamond or any kind that is needed for the company they’re working for. Most of the luxurious Jewelry companies are very famous and their consumers pay high prices. But the people that work to find the rubies or diamonds get paid a low percentage of the investment. They are the ones who should get paid very well. 

As people we all want to succeed to a higher level of education, work, or accomplishments than we are or than our parents were. Getting an education and reaching our goal is important. In this section, it says, “for many, their success has been accomplished despite what they were taught about what it means to be successful during their childhoods.” And that’s correct. It’s true. But you must work hard, put effort and time, and when the person is willing to do it because of their goals and to be successful, they will become motivated and, work hard for it. The cultural environment affects us too. Like music, books, lessons, schools, having older siblings, etc. Cultural capital is based on values, knowledge, and meaning. I and many others can relate. In my childhood, my parents always encouraged and taught us that education leads to success. And I for sure agree with them. In addition to that, I have older siblings. They went to college and university, so that gives an effect on us, we see that they went to college and we would do the same because we’re surrounded by that environment. It also depends on families. According to them, most respondents reported that their parents were interested in seeing their children “do better” than they had done. In my opinion that is true. It makes the child encouraged and want to keep going. But there are a lot of people who are very successful that did not have any encouragement from parents and still reached their goal. So in the end, it has to be in the person, they have to be self-motivated, eager, and ready to work towards their goals. Seeing how women in the past weren’t allowed to work, and now they are, made a big change in the working class. The effects of racial and ethnic prejudice and discrimination cross both class gender lines. The experience of racial discrimination adds an important element to the equation and modifies the experience of growing up working-class. Gender shouldn’t matter in the working class. Both can work what works for them. Every person in their childhood is taught something different, so some see that it’s ok and some don’t. After reading this section I realized that childhood, the environment we’re living in, and other things affect our view of education and the working class. Socialization within a class culture is perhaps not a “determinant in the reproduction of the social structure” as Bourdieu implied. 

In this section, Ezekiel reports on his observations and interviews with groups of white racists. In Ezekiel’s experience, he was a Jewish person between a group of people who were racist to Jews. I can relate. I’ve had problems before in my childhood just because of my race. I would get stares, questions, but not too violent things. I didn’t feel very different or disturbed by what was happening around me because of how my parents raised or taught us. That reminds me of the reading (Social Inequality). Reading about Ezekiel’s experience made me realize how racism stayed between people throughout history. For generations, racism has always been a problem in an individual’s life. That made me think about why are people racist or still racist? After all, there are no biological differences between people. No race is superior to another, we’re all the same. Some of the things that people can have racist attitudes are taking a view of people that are around us, hanging around with people that are “like us” which sometimes over time can lead us to think that our race or group of people is better than others, we’re quick to judge, etc. What I agree on the most from Ezekiel’s writing is that racism is an important thing that a person should understand and reflect on in their life. For example, we should know that there is no preferred or better race than the other, and fix our thoughts if they seem racist. We should be more aware of our influences, get to know and understand race society before judging and understand ourselves and intentions better. Ezekiel mentioned that racism is a way of seeing or understanding the world and a way of thinking. To a certain degree of it is part of everyone who lives in a racist society. Racism subconsciously affects the way we view other people or individuals and affects negatively people of color and other races. 

Katz pointed out that rankings are based on attractiveness and they have significant consequences in our lives. I agree with her Katz point. Sadly, a lot of people all over the world judge people based on their looks before even getting to know who they are and how their personality is. In my opinion, judging/treating people differently based on their looks is very wrong. I’m not saying that people are perfect but it’s still happening. I remember one time that I judged someone based on how they looked. After I talked to that person, I felt guilty on how I judged that person so I tried to apologize in a way. I really hate when I judge people on how they look, but the good thing is when I start to think that way, I remind myself immediately that people are from the inside not from the outside. Just like “Don’t judge a book by its cover”. As I was reading Katz article, It says that jobs hire and refuse people based on their appearance. This is a huge mistake. How will their appearance help run the company or job? They are destroying a person’s career based on how they think the person looks! Rejecting a competent person just because they think that he/she is not attractive is bad for both sides, the job, and the employee. That reminded me of an article I read once online, a year ago, it had something about changing your appearance if it’s going to help you get what you want whether it was work or being “accepted”. I was disappointed that there was such a thing. Why would they encourage people to change how they look, to look in a certain way? I thought to myself that whoever wrote such things didn’t care about peoples’ feelings and just wanted to get benefited. Katz mentioned something important that caught my attention. It was how teachers treat their students or doctors treat their patients, based on their appearance. This has a negative impact on the students or patients. For example. My friend at work told me once about her experience while working in a different school for the first quarter of the school year. She said that one of the staff favored 3 students because of how they looked and because of their race. She neglected the rest of the students and gave more attention to these students. My friend didn’t want to get involved or tell her directly that what she’s doing is wrong. So she tried her best to treat the rest of the kids fairly and help them too. What I think is that it’s very disappointing that even schools that should be the place where kids learn the manners and how to treat people well, is actually the opposite and worse sometimes. But in the end, there’s always pros and cons in everything and every place. Judging by looks, treating and accepting people based on their looks is a very bad thing and people should be more open to others. We can’t change human nature, but in my view, I believe that people should get more educated about how to treat people or how to not judge people based on their looks. 

While women serve, they have some benefits that are helpful for them. For example, educational opportunities, have easier tasks or training. From the men’s view, they see that it is unfair for women to have a greater opportunity for education than them. I see that they should have that opportunity because they would be less likely to have a greater chance to be promoted above their peers. That reminded me of my friend. She once told me when we were in high school about going to the military or not. She wanted to hear my opinion or advice. I told her if you have the courage and ready for that military life, you can go. Then I asked her if she knows how it’s going to be like and she wasn’t sure, neither me. I told her that it depends on how you see it, how your life is, and ask other people and females who have served or know about it. In the end, I didn’t know what she decided. As I read Miller’s reading, I saw some of the situations about the woman’s life in the military. In my opinion, women can serve in the military, but there should be more rules that are helpful for them and keep them safe. In the military, soldiers’ experience of gender varies according to rank, age, race, and occupational specialty. This is a bad thing that even in the military or military training that should be a place where everyone should be serious and follows the rules and that stuff, is actually the opposite in more than one thing.  Female soldiers are more likely than male soldiers to report harassment of any kind, and some can be reported after deployment. 

Coontz points out in this selection how families were in the past, and how they are now. I’ve paid attention to the parts that had the comparison of the past and now to how parents treated their kids and how much time they spent with them. In the past, very few moms worked. Now it has increased. Working moms also spend a good amount of time with their children because they don’t get this chance all day. Fathers in the past worked all day and did not spend enough time with their children, but it also depended on how the family was. For example, some were working as a family, some fathers worked half the day, and some worked for days or weeks without seeing their children. Today there is a greater chance for fathers to spend time with their kids because of the working moms during the day or half. It’s a good thing for the family. Fathers still work, but they spend more time with their kids. Some positive effects are kids doing better in school, fathers understanding kids more, and making a stronger family relationship. All of that depends on the family, it might not always be positive. I see that it’s a good thing having both parents work with a good schedule. When they both work, they can have a better stronger good family. They must have a good life schedule for their family so they can do things correctly and have a positive effect on the family. For example, if both parents worked and they are the kind of parents that don’t give enough attention to their kids, and they had 2 kids, one is in middle school and one in elementary. If they both worked from the morning till evening, in my view, they won’t have that much time to spend with their kids and will not have a really strong relationship with them. So it always depends on how the parents are and how they take care of their families. So, raising and taking care of children needs the commitment of the parents to be responsible and build a good family. And that works with single parents as well. They can work and spend time with their kids. The American family has classically been understood as a nuclear family. Mother, Father, and Children. It could be happy or not. After I’ve read this section I saw a view of how the American family is and can be. I believe that every family is different because of place, time, culture, and their thoughts of a “perfect” or good family. 

The wedding is to celebrate marriage. I see that no matter what culture or religion a person is in, they celebrate their marriage by doing a wedding, having witnesses, etc. I think that a diamond ring for some people is the first thing they think about when they start planning for weddings. A wedding ring is important. Because it shows that they are in a committed relationship. The ring is a symbol of commitment to your significant other, but they don’t have to be too expensive. I believe that people would want a diamond ring for their weddings because of myths and of how people made it look that it’s the ideal ring for a bride. For example, they say that diamond rings are a symbol of eternal love and that it brings happiness in their future. So people do the same as other people believe these lies and consume materials that are sold for them so they could keep the business going like a lot of other things in our life. Ideals of marriage and family have been, and continue to be shaped by structural forces. Now, many women work. I see that working conditions can have an impact on the relationships between couples. For example, if the couples both worked and did not schedule their time, plans, and life, they won’t be able to spend much time together and they might feel overwhelmed and the relationship might not work. The positive side is that they both work, which means they both have their budget and can help each other. Each will have a different pay level, but that should not affect them negatively. Also, they have to schedule their time and plan things together, and their relationship will work out. Working can be challenging sometimes when you are in a relationship. It depends on the work they are in, so each will get affected differently. I think that the most important thing for the relationship to work and not affect it is to do a good plan or schedule for their time and life, and see what might affect them and what doesn’t. If they find things that might affect their private life, they should change or get rid of the problem. When people talk about how their dream wedding will look like, most of the time they don’t think of the expenses they’ll have to pay. But when it’s real, they plan it out either as they dreamed, bigger, or on budget. If I were to plan for my wedding, I wouldn’t make it very fancy or luxurious. I believe that this is a waste of money. I would buy a car with the amount that a lot of people spend on only their weddings. So, I would divide up the labor of planning the wedding between both of us. I believe that both should be involved in planning out their dream wedding and how they want it to look and turnout because it’s for both of them. The planning would be the place, the guests, food, decor, clothes, pictures, time, etc. Dividing the wedding planning might differ from person to person. For example, groups of people like, heterosexual or gay/lesbian. I think that each person would do it differently from their view of life and people. I think it differs because of the lifestyle of each person. 

 The story of Andes survivors wasn’t like I expected. I thought that it will talk about the survivors and not surviving by eating other dead bodies. Henslin wrote that these principles are fundamental to human life. The sociological view of this story and its norms make sense, but I don’t agree with it all.  The only thing I thought that was correct in the reading is, when circumstances change, definitions can become outmoded-even definitions about fundamental aspects of life. So, depending on the situation sometimes we do things that we’ve never done just to survive or get out of a situation. That was the idea. If I was in their situation, I would rather die or live from water from snow melting but not eat dead human bodies, not even raw animal meat. One thing that was repeated in the reading is that they are allowed to eat from the dead bodies because it doesn’t have a soul. There are two things that I disagree with. One is that they shouldn’t even think about doing that. And two, this is still a human body, it’s not something to be eaten. In the story, there was a point that they had to put norms and limits to what is everyone allowed to do. Also, it shows that it’s socially constructed. One main thing that I think was important from this reading is that it was trying to show us how humans or society are and how they change their norms and definitions in their lives to what works with them, even if it was something wrong.

After reading Hunts section on how police officers treat people/criminals and how they are allowed to use force and when, I understood that there are many situations that a police officer can use too much or little force and sometimes get out of control. Each officer is different. Each of them follows the rules but sometimes they are controlled by their emotions. What I think is those police officers should use force, but shouldn’t be used randomly and without control. I agree that they shouldn’t have a weak personality,  look scared or hesitant in doing something, but they should still be mindful of how and when they use the force. For example, almost half of the chases or similar to it, by the police end in violence. Like a person getting arrested and the person not following their instructions, so they end up hitting that person. It’s true that police officers deal with very stressful and hard situations, but being too aggressive will make things worse. If I were in a position that can make police violence less, one thing would be is to use fewer materials and to learn something like martial arts. They would have control over the person and situation without injuring or hurting them, and they would feel more confident in themselves and wiser with what they’re doing. And all of that starts with how the police officers are being trained. Martial arts should be the first thing every officer is being trained. And then they can tell them how to use force and when. So in the academies, they should have good trainers and leaders, and they should get trained well and not with too much aggression and to become an aggressive officer. Reading Hunt’s section was beneficial for me and it made me understand better the world of a police officer and how some use unnecessary force.