I agree with the idea that we seek information from people we are unacquainted with and that we have these default interactions that we have for certain personalities that we’ve encountered in the past. I think stems from this assumption that we all believe humans, in general, are predictable - so we assume that others are too. This, however, seems like a double-edged sword, because although we might seek to be with personalities that we are comfortable interacting with, we might end up creating wrong assumptions about others without getting to know them. It’s like that thing with high school kids that ignore or bully the “weird” one in the class – they simply do not understand them. Plus, people have impressions of your impressions too, so you might end up being labeled as a “weird” one too if you associate with them which, really, shouldn’t be the case.

The two kinds of sign activity: the expression one gives and gives off, is interesting. I rarely think that there is a difference between the things we do, and the way we think people think would react to the things we do. I like the example of Preedy, and how he tries so hard to give off a certain impression to other people, and by doing so, proves that is not his true self and that he is merely attempting to deceive others. Now this got me thinking about almost every person I know in my life – how am I supposed to know if the way they presented themselves to me is the person they truly are? Perhaps if I get to know them, their cracks will start to start to show, but if I assume these people have no ulterior motive, should I even be concerned about the true identity of others?

I agree with the idea that we try to imitate what others do in a group to fit in. Whether conscious or not, I also think we are aware of the way others think and say about various ideas, topics, and people, and and that we try to imitate the opinions of the majority to be accepted, even though, sometimes, it might not necessarily reflect our honest sentiments. However, I think this is a very short-sighted solution to being accepted in a group, because eventually, you will start to resent your group for having values that conflict with what you truly believe in. Once you do share these sentiments with someone, if anyone from the group hears about it, they will probably resent you too because they would feel deceived.

I also agree how first impressions can change the way others think of you, especially through succeeding interactions. I had this patient at work who I was friendly with at first, almost treated them like a friend, but when the time came to be serious, they would not take me seriously. I wonder now if I had been stricter with them - would their impression of me have changed? Then again, if I were strict to begin with, would that not be deceiving others of who I truly am? But thinking about it more, should it even matter if I deceive others, if in the end, I get what I want?

I think this reading is very interesting because it talks about not only about how we present ourselves; how other people present themselves; ours and other’s motives for the way we or they present themselves; other’s impressions of the way the present ourselves; but also the impressions of others that we may not be aware of due to the way we present ourselves. As I said, it’s almost a strategy game, where you try to try to outplay the opponent by anticipating what they are thinking and how they perceive how you think.

This chapter got the thinking of the anime “Death Note”. In this show, Kira, the culprit, almost manages to get away with the murder of millions by assimilating into the police force meant to take him down. He knew that by looking agreeable, nice, and responsible, he would make others in the force doubt that he was the actual culprit, even though there were accusations by L, the leader of the task force, against Kira accusing otherwise.

Honestly, my brain just got fried from all this thinking, expressing, impressing, and thinking.

The text talks about how avoiding any wording or notion of the occupation itself can help destigmatize the profession. Distancing your self from the job through various techniques such as emotional detachment, humor, and counteracting the stereotype are other ways morticians deal with stigma.

I think the idea of making the work of a mortician like a procedure is interesting because you detach yourself from the emotional aspect of the work and focus more on the steps to finishing it. I think it is like when you turn what you are passionate about (like if you like to draw, paint, dance, etc.) into actual work where you are charged by someone else – it sometimes takes away the fun and enjoyment out of it.

I think humor is an interesting way to deal with the stigma of being a mortician too. In general, I think humor makes any situation less serious, as long as it's done at the right time in the right place. It’s also nice that morticians have their conventions because it allows them the space to relate to others feeling the same way. It’s like that scene from Wreck-it-Ralph where the bad guys have a convention to talk about their own stigma of being ostracized for being who they are.

It also never really occurred to me that people make a decent amount of money off funerals. Thinking about it though, you can make a lot of money off a service that is always in demand, and I think I do not mind, as long as you do not wave your wealth in the faces of your clients. I find it insane though that you can make more money off of cremation than using a casket, for that, I can’t wrap my head around it.

I think death is taken very differently in many cultures. I wonder what makes some people more affected than others by the idea of dead bodies and death. I also wonder why Americans take on death so – for lack of a better term – generally boring than other cultures. In the Philippines at wakes, yes, wakes would be a time for mourning and remembering the passing of a loved one, but it would also be a time for gathering, eating, partying, gaming and even drinking. People sleep in the room of the wake where the bodies are, almost like a way to accompany the soul of the one who passed (that is coming from a personal experience from the wake of my late uncle).

Because many cultures view death differently, I think funeral directors are viewed very differently in different cultures too. However, I think the text is a great insight into a specific culture and the perception of American culture and death. I remember something I read online or from a show where they said “A funeral is not for the dead, but the living”; for funeral directors, I think that means more to them in more ways than one.

The three dominant theories of society (symbolic interactionism, functionalism, and chaos theory) presented in the text were an interesting read – especially the first one. I never noticed how we give almost everything we have, whether it be physical items, relationships with people, or events, some significant meaning to our lives. In some way, we make connections with these things and determine that these things are important to us. Aside from our needs (like water, food, and shelter), I wonder what motivates us to make these connections to begin with. Why is it in our intrinsic nature to make more things part of our lives, after all, wouldn’t fewer things mean fewer problems to deal with? Back then, I had a stuffed turtle that I would place beside me every night when I slept. I made pillows and a small bed for it to sleep in despite it being just a stuffed toy. Looking back, I wonder why this was a very big symbol for me back then.

Research allows us an insight into the mechanics of society. However, how far should we go to seek the truths about society? This topic reminds me of the Jonestown mass murder-suicide incident because I have never understood why people would join these cults, so that would be interesting to dive into their mindsets and culture. If allowed to observe in real time, I wonder what methods a sociologist would have used to study this group safely and ethically. I guess, in a way, some people have tried (the reporters), while intending to free these people, but paid their lives dearly in the attempt.

A couple of theories from the text relate to how other’s perception affects our vision of our “self”. One of them is Cooley’s “looking glass self” theory which talks about how our selves’ are built on how others perceive us. Another is Mead’s I vs Me and Generalized other theory, and how our internal sense of societal expectations affects the way we act in certain situations. One last is Groffman’s “impression management” theory and how we present ourselves differently to different people. Back then in high school, I was this guy who knew how to edit and do a lot of media work and a lot of people would ask for help in their projects. I leaned into that and made a business out of it because others asked. Until today, I am still very interested in that hobby personally and professionally. I had not been interested in that until I broke out in 9^th grade, so I wonder if I would still have this strong interest now had I not accepted those works in 9^th grade?

The text talks also about how some items can also be extensions of ourselves because it has ties to our past, like what Belk said. I understand people keep items for that reason, but what about people who hoard items? Are these people just addicted to saving items for memorial value, or were they taught to think that way to begin with? My mother tends to hoard pretty bad – in fact, there is an entire bedroom dedicated to stuffing items away, items that have been used since my late great grandmother. I wonder was happened to them that caused them to horde uncontrollably, while others don’t.

The text also talks about Groffman’s “loss of self” and how we can lose our sense of identity by losing our possessions. As in the text, I believe this is a tactic in the military, where they take their possessions in the first day of training, to instill in them to think more like a group than individually. They also have uniforms which, in a way, eliminates a way of expressing your own identity. I just wonder the psychological effect of uniforms have in other places like school or work? Do people learn or work better knowing that they are looked upon as the same as everyone else?

I think this idea of branding is all very true especially in the case of Filipinos. Many Filipinos prefer global brands over local brands because I think there is that perception that you are smarter, wealthier and have more influence if you use these, even though they may not necessarily be of better quality and more affordable (https://www.rappler.com/business/203559-filipinos-prefer-global-over-local-brands/). I am guilty of this because my dad used to bring me Hollister shirts when he visited home, and some of my friends would point out my shirts and how “branded” they were. In a way, it somehow made me feel better about myself, and now I have bought a lot of my clothing from there. It’s silly because over here in the States the perception is different because apparently - at least for the people that I have talked to - the company is known for harming the environment for the sake of making a better-quality product.

In a world where almost everything is branded, I think it is almost impossible to separate your sense of self from the things you have. In fact, like what the book says, using unbranded stuff is almost like a brand in of itself.

I think one factor is the words and accent of the scientist. I think certain accents have different effects on people. Accents from prestigious, urban, and rich areas may sound more pleasant and convincing because it’s usually associated with being wealthier and more educated.

Speaking about that, I think less education could also affect the outcome too, because people who are generally less knowledgeable and lack critical thinking skills might be more prone to manipulation. The text says the original experiment was done at Yale, but maybe the fact these people being in school, who are more open to learning and new experiences, affected the outcome.

I also think the impact of past experiences can affect whether someone is more trustworthy or not – people who have felt like they had their trust betrayed before might be less prone to manipulation.

Another is how the scientist was dressed. I think someone who looks professional, looks smarter or wears clothing that is expected from working their assigned occupation can make them look more convincing and like they understand what they are doing.

I read this article about how Joshua Bell, a world-renowned violinist, experimented to see if the way he dressed changed the way people viewed him. Instead of his usual, formal, attire, he wore a baseball cap, sweater, and jeans. Even though in the video he played beautifully, only a few people stopped and recognized his talent. Compare that to the concert halls that fill thousands of people that watch him play. [https://www.classicfm.com/artists/joshua-bell/violin-busking-washington-subway/#:~:text=Over%20a%20period%20of%2043,made%20%2452.17%20(%C2%A342.18).]

I also think about how the experiment might have gone differently if more than 1 person was around being experimented on. If the subject was surrounded by people who were willing to shock the learner, they might have felt the need to “follow the pack”. On the flip side, if a couple of people might have been reluctant to proceed, the subject might feel the same way too.

Nevertheless, I think it’s difficult to judge what I would do in their situation. From the outside, looking in, it may be easy to judge these subjects for being so cruel. However, things change when you are under pressure, feel the adrenaline, and when you are trapped in a corner, you might be forced to do things you naturally wouldn’t do. I cannot imagine what it was like in Hitler’s time if you were someone working for him (or forced to). I think these people were not only convinced to obey his orders, but there might have been threats to their lives or families that motivated them further.

I think the end to the experiment was, although a very faithful telling of what happens in that industry, very cheap and felt like a cop-out. People in her situation, would not – cannot ­- walk out of their jobs because that would put them in a situation where they cannot pay the bills. It is a luxury that the author has that not everyone has access to, and many people just have to deal with the stress and “bull” that come from these kinds of jobs.

I saw this video about the CEO of Chase being grilled by Congresswoman Kaite Porter about how theoretically (or perhaps, literally) someone working in their bank will have more to spend than to pay for, despite maximizing their savings (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WLuuCM6Ej0). The cycle of poverty is hard to break out of without a good foundation, and no parent can live sustainably with the current minimum wage. Moreover, without quality education, their children may have to face the same struggle they faced too.

The text makes me more thankful that I was raised by parents who tried their best to provide. I was fortunate to always have food on the table, and a house to stay in. I was put into a private English-speaking school in the Philippines which taught me a lot and helped me to survive immigrating alone. I have a better understanding of the situation single mothers - my mother - were in, yet I cannot imagine myself surviving in their shoes.

Although, even after all this reminiscing, this gets me thinking though: what was the point of the text in the first place? After all, we all know that being poor is hard, and the wealthier will most likely never have to encounter the problems of being poor likely ever and we know that there are good people here and there. Why do all this work only to walk out in the end? It is not like poverty will change with or without the existence of this text – in fact, I think poverty will never be absolutely resolved no matter what we do.  If someone poorer - who did not have the influence, resources or time as the author had – had written this text, would people even read it? Is this the equivalent of a celebrity working at Walmart and making a video that gets viral online? (https://www.tiktok.com/@thenewsmovement/video/7295889831555550506)

Nevertheless, I do agree with one of the findings of the author when working in low-wage jobs: sometimes, the people you meet working these jobs are worth more than the wage they earn.

The color theme of the group was green to convey the idea that we are pro-environment and professional (the other competing organization was colored blue). If you wore green a lot, especially during days when “hangouts” would happen, you’d be associated with the organization.

I think the green apparel made me feel part of the group. I’d always see other students wearing green during org hangouts and events and the “Ang Sandigan” shirts were pretty well designed. Also, it was not too expensive, and the theming was so simple you could add in your own touch - so long as you did not include any blue. I felt like the color was almost territorial because it was so blatantly obvious who was with you and who were not. This color theming extended to student elections too, because technically, these two organizations were an extension of the two major parties to vote for. Simple to say, if you were part of the organization and wore their colors, you were also expected to support of the electoral party associated with it.

I think there are many factors that may affect whether fast food workers would unionize. Factors involving the company include current wages, provided benefits (401k, retirement, educational opportunities, etc.), workplace environments, people in management, coworkers, job security, future job opportunities and the value of the company itself. For the workers themselves, I think some factors include education, previous workplace experience and previous union experience may affect whether workers would want to unionize. Factors in the environment are at play too, like how well-developed a place is, the population size, average income of people living in the area, and even how urbanized an area is too.

The way they treat employees versus the managers is very different, and, in a way, I understand that they do it that way because managers are important to running the business overall. However, I find the efficiency and standardization of work at McDonalds very conflicting. I find on one hand, this to be impressive because finding the best way to do something the cheapest way takes experimentation and time, while implementing that on a large scale can be very resource intensive. On the other hand, though, even with all their innovation and coherence, it is unfortunate that the workers who are in the forefront of the business – the public representatives of the company – maybe be treated unfairly because of it.

In the case of my own life, I have the privilege of control and power because I can easily change things in my own life to maximize efficiency, and the only person who would suffer from it would be me. Meanwhile for large companies, they are dealing with hundreds and thousands of employees all with varying positions, interests, and wages. In the end, businesses need to make money, so employee desires and concerns might be compromised to maximize profits instead. This could mean taking away employee benefits, complication of company procedures, or layoffs and unfortunately, those affected likely do not have the power or influence to do anything about it. This could create an environment where people on the higher ups would prioritize their own self-interest rather than those lower on the corporate ladder while those on the lower end would resent those on the higher end for their power and influence. I think that is why I think unions are important – to make sure that companies are reminded of and compromise with employees so that everyone can benefit, and not just a certain group of people.

I think rationalization is useful on almost every scale – whether in micro or macro levels – after all, it helps to reduce time wasted, save money, and increase efficiency. However, I also think accountability and fairness are important too because exploiting workers, much less young and naïve ones, is not a form of efficiency, but abuse. I think all possible outcomes and aspects should be considered when making work efficient, that way, everyone can benefit.

It talks about how branding further ties shopping to emotions, and how through it, someone could convey their individuality and personality through their preferences. My question is, how come some people view branding and quality differently? I wonder why there is this stereotype that lower to middle-class people prefer designer brands while richer people prefer low-key clothing more. On the other hand, there comes the rise of big box stores, shops that monopolize a particular product, dollar stores, and discount stores like Walmart. Shopping has also transcended from the physical space to the online world, which provides further avenues for people to spend without having to leave their own home.

I agree with the idea that shopping isn’t all about buying the best item for the cheapest price, instead, it’s almost like finding what is new and trendy to spice up everyday life. Its like how mother goes to a department store and tries out hundred of handbags and shoes for hours without buying anything, while I wander around the gaming area, looking around the newest games and consoles that I cannot afford. Shopping is like daydreaming about what life would be like if you bought it. I felt like my life would have been better if my mom could have gotten me that Nintendo 3ds, but my 12-year-old self could not fathom the idea of being broke. How naïve was I back then.

The text says that we have different motivations for shopping. One motivation is that we shop to buy our needs that have the best bang for our buck (the “rational choice”, as some sociologists say it). We shop also to buy as a way to express our sense of self to others or to fit in a certain social group. Schor states that shopping is social and relational because we compare ourselves to others and feel the need to consume. Emile Durkheim talks about how shopping can unite and give a sense of we-ness, especially in groups where the common interest is about the item itself. An example of this are conventions like Comic-con, where comic book fans gather to express their interest in comics.

It also questions whether shopping is even a social problem, and the different perspectives we can consider determining if it is one or not. Perhaps to an economist, it may not be because it created jobs, but for an environmentalist, it may be because it uses resources and promotes ecologically unsustainable lives. I personally think shopping is a problem depending on the item and its practicality. I would not judge someone buying a coat for the winter, but I would be less alright if it were made out of the fur of some endangered animal.

All in all, it is interesting how shopping brings people together in more ways than one.

Apple teaches their consumers about their lives and consumption habits through marketing. A lot of their video campaigns focus on the creative potential and flexibility of their products. One of their campaigns even tried to compare their iPad to what a traditional computer is.

The company's emphasis on innovation and design emphasizes consumerism and materialism. They price their items pretty high and can be seen as more appealing to wealthier consumers instead of those with lower incomes.

Apple’s ideological messages are almost widely accepted by many. For other businesses, the idea of success means creating new innovations and designs for new products. Also, the idea of paying a high premium for repairs and pricing strategies are adopted by many competing companies.

The poor in the Philippines are portrayed as unfortunate, yet happy and hospitable people who would be happy to help any person (more likely tourists) who is need of direction. You will usually see rugged, hardworking people in the marketing materials from the Department of Tourism and not people of middle and higher classes. For example, in Boracay, a very popular island and beach vacation destination, many of the people who control the boats that are used in island hopping, rent out motorcycles, and are tour guides are poor, and charge very little. There are a lot of testimonies saying thay if you come from a foreign country, it is cheap to vacation in the Philippines. I think it is because these people charge so little, stay poor, and have their children follow their line of work is why the tourism industry thrives so much in the country.

Although, I am not saying that because the poor are taken advantage of, they necessarily deceive others for their money - after all, there are a lot of tourists who can testify to the contrary, and I think they usually treat fellow Filipinos equally; but I just feel like these people aren’t compensated enough for how much they help with the country’s economy and tourism industry.

It is the same situation with our rice farmers too, where the government used to pay dirt cheap for their produce to sell them at a higher price. The current president even promised to lower the cost of rice during his campaign, but never had a sustainable plan for how they would sustain the farmers. (FACT CHECK: Marcos did make P20/kilo rice promise (rappler.com) // Marcos promise of P20/kilo rice ‘not possible’ for now – new DA chief | Philstar.com. Interesting the priorities of the government because they seemingly want to screw over industries run by already-impoverished people. Perhaps they also agree with Gans' theory of the poor - in a more cynical way.

I do agree with the idea that these roles could be filled up with not just poor people. However, costs would likely rise and the appeal to foreign tourists and prices of goods would probably not be the same.

I think it is not the intention of parents to discourage their children from staying in the working class, but it is just a matter of circumstance and coincidence that brings about an atmosphere that encourages the opposite. Although, I think there is some compromise when making decisions that could affect the future of a child. After all, I think the parents themselves do not want to be in a community completely disconnected from their own interests and cultures, so they stick to what is familiar and what they have known. It’s a conflict between what the parents want or need short-term versus what could potentially be better for their children long-term. This sounds like the cycle of poverty lite™ which encourages people to stay within their social class for many reasons. I think it is also a bit hard for adults to integrate with other people of higher social classes. After all, I think many of the values, practices and hobbies adults have exist because of the way they were brought up.

I am sort of in a similar situation with my mother – she is a single mother raising her parents and her only child with minimal help from my father. I do not condemn or judge her for not trying better (life happens, after all) however, I do wonder how I would have turned out if she actually did and I lived in a better neighborhood, with better education, better access to resources and raised with the same values as middle-class children. Would I have had the same opportunities I have now?

This gets me thinking of Arcane – an animated TV show about two sisters, Jinx (who was originally names Powder) and Vi, found in the middle a brewing conflict between opposite sides – the rich utopian city of Piltover and the seedy oppressed underbelly of Zaun. In the climax of the 3^rd episode, the young sisters were separated when they tried to save their father figure - with Jinx staying as the Zaun mob boss’ henchman and daughter-figure while Vi being arrested and brought to Piltover who eventually falls in love with a Piltovian police officer. Although they both started from Zaun, they ended up very differently at the end of the show – each with their own different values, perspectives, and goals due to the way they were raised and the kind of environment they were in. They never ended up seeing eye-to-eye because of all this. I wonder had they not been separated, or had they grown in a similar environment, would they have ended up differently?

The text was interesting to read because it is a problem that I may have to face in the future. I will admit there is a disconnect between me and the text, because I know what its like to feel ostracized as an immigrant, but not as someone who come from a lower class living in a higher one. At the moment though, I am more worried about how I am going to get into middle class (or at least, a better class) as an immigrant, non-white individual from an ethnic minority.

The text describes the Social Register and how upper-class families literally breed and train their kids to live like people in the social register from the day they were both until they die. I personally think that they are brainwashing their children from their birth all the way until adulthood. They are throwing millions of dollars into bribing schools, hiring professionals, and building mansions which could have been used for more philanthropic goals and solving serious problems around the world. Although they do donate money for different causes, I feel like their ulterior motive is to portray them as generous and giving individuals so that the rest of society would not shred them so hard for being stinking rich. The text makes it sound like marrying would be a pain too, because if you met the love of your life outside Social Register, you would have to go through this application and screening to see if you are worthy of getting back in.

The Social register is very interesting because I think it allows the upper class a world to be “accepted in”. However, I think the social register itself is the reason for the antagonism from the rest of society to these members. Its existence is like mocking the less wealthy because they are “too poor to get in” and only people of a certain status are more important than everyone else. I also wonder what it would be like if you were kicked out of the Social Register too; If you were ostracized from the rest of society for being too rich, and outcasted from the only group that encourages socialization between the rich, where would you go to be accepted?

I think all this is a very weird nuance of wealth and privilege. If you are too poor, you will not have the money or power to do anything and you will be seen as lesser than everyone else. However, if you are too rich, then most of your life would be dedicated to preserving that wealth for your family and future children and you will be seen as out-of-touch by those less rich than you. It’s like at the extreme ends of wealth, your freedom gets more constrained, and society views you extremely negatively in very different ways.

I would parallel all this to royalty because this text reminds of this one Japanese royalty named Princess Mako of Japan who fell in love and married a commoner. I am glad she had the guts to do something like this however, I find it ridiculous how this had to be an “official breakoff” and that she is considered no longer part of the royal family anymore. This also reminds me of Price Harry’s breakoff from the English royal family with Meghan Markle. Makes me wonder what these people had to endure for this to happen and if pursuing happiness and love is actually worth sacrificing a lifetime of stability.

Anyways, it’s just very interesting the ways the upper class try to separate themselves from “everyone else”. If you had all the wealth, power and privilege as these people have, wouldn’t you think you would have to deal with less in life?

I think my decision to go to the university I did (in the Philippines) was because of its price and where I lived. Had I been in a higher social class, I would have moved out of my hometown to go to a better university either in the capital or overseas, but if I had been in a lower social class, I would not have been able to afford it.

I also think my decision to have an interest in technology was because I used to have a bad laptop, and I learned and researched how to fix, maintain, and upgrade it to increase its speed and efficiency. Had I been richer and have gotten a better laptop, I probably would not have had an interest in fixing and improving laptops to begin with.

Even my decision to immigrate to the United States was in the hopes that I could move to a higher social class through work and education. I probably would not have come if my family was rich to begin with, and if my access to resources was wider.

I also think the minute decisions in my life are affected by my social class too. From where I buy my coffee, to what I am having for lunch, or maybe which brand t-shirt I want to buy or the kinds of hobbies I am interested - a lot of these were because I had access to resources that were available at that time in the social class I was in.

Coffee conveys class and trends. I think trends are driven by the higher class, while the lower class find ways to imitate a version that is not necessarily as expensive. Starbucks was once known to be consumed by higher-class, eloquent coffee enthusiasts. However, ever since the company’s mass growth and commercialization, I think higher classes have turned away from the company due to its mass accessibility to lower classes. I think nowadays, trends, like what coffee and Starbucks once was, are no longer determined necessarily by people of high class. With the boom of internet and mass accessibility to almost anyone, literally anyone can create something and trend online. Globalization almost breaks the typical dynamic of class and power because there are so many ways to influence others without necessarily having the money to do so.

Then again, perhaps the rich and affluent have their own “trends” undenounced to lowly classes like us. What I can say is that I am not exactly interested in what is “in” between the rich because in this economy, it is way too expensive to imitate them. I think many others feel that way too, and I would rather indulge in the things that people of my class like. Thinking about it more though, like what the book says, there are people who subvert to what is now popular. To each to their own, I guess.

The reading talks about how Starbucks as a third place, but in reality, people usually go with friends they already know. Perhaps the “idea” of a third place accessible to the public is just appealing because I think you rarely see that in underdeveloped areas – at least from what I have noticed living in Stockton. I also think coffee is one of the products that reveals the imbalanced earnings between hard laborers and mega corporations. The idea of Fairtrade is good, but the industry relies so heavily on these farmers, who are only paid a fraction of the mark-ups Starbucks sells their products at, that it is almost unfathomable how unappreciated these workers are. Perhaps this is a callback to the previous article I read in this class about how the poor have a purpose in society - in which they would do the hard work no one else would want to do for little money.

I think Starbucks capitalized coffee’s potential through two things: accessibility and creativity. Coffee can be bought from almost anywhere and there are so many ways you can make coffee - you can dump as many flavorings as possible and garnish it with all the flavors or you can just consume it plainly. I think Starbucks’s success was due to their balance between these two factors: they made coffee very accessible, and just had enough variety to make it interesting. In this sense though, I think anything and everything can be used to make a profit with enough resources and creativity.

Coffee is more than just the drink itself. Indulging in its dark roast allows us an insight to the rich and complicated mechanisms between classes, while revealing the bitter injustice to hard laborers that is  being perpetuated by mega corporations for profit.

It makes me more frustrated how incredibly unjustified the poor are being used for cheap labor. After all, I think even just a minute of what the upper-class earns would be a month’s worth of income for the poor. I do understand that there is a purpose of the poor in society, but the top earners earn so much money that I think it would not be out of the question to take a part of the wealth to better the lives of those who need it the most. While people are sleeping on carboard boxes freezing on the side of the street, there are those that have mansions with bedrooms unaccompanied.

It makes me more discouraged that people from the middle class, who work hundreds of times more hours than the top 1%, do not even have a 10^th of the wealth they have, and that they do not even have much compared to the poor too. Plus, I think there is this social pressure that makes it hard for people to break into a higher class, and factors that encourage people to stay within the class they are already in.

This video has also made me realize that there is a cycle of wealth that would keep families who are already rich on top. Families with generational wealth would probably never fall out of the top 10% because of their investments and children of these families are practically breeding with each other to form this impenetrable bubble that keeps getting bigger and bigger.

Yet, through all of this, you would expect the government to want to do something about this – but it seems like wealth inequality is just getting worse and worse every year. I guess with money comes power, and the power of the rich seems to loom over not only the citizens, but the government too.

With this, I do wonder what we could do to reach the “ideal” kind of graph that we want to see. Then again, is it even possible? Doesn’t the idea of “wealth equality” sound almost utopian? Perhaps the wealth inequality today is not a cause, but the result of our innate and biological need to want hierarchy and order. If so, is it even worth solving problems out of our control? Personally, I think the idea of everyone getting equal wealth and power is basically impossible, but I do think we need to at least try to make a world where less people suffer.

Sports is not entirely about the clash or competition itself but about people wanting to see themselves as part of a group with a common interest or goal. The idea of being in a crowd, wearing the same jersey colors, watching the same show, and feeling the same emotions as others makes you feel like you wanted and part of a bigger picture.

Sports is also about wanting to see ourselves in others and hoping that they succeed. It may be a way for people to forget about the troubles of their lives and place their hopes and dreams on the athletes they root for. So that when they do succeed, they can feel a sense of happiness or joy, even though they were not the ones to directly achieve it. I think these positive feelings depends more on when it is someone that may be physiologically similar to you, like if they were the same nationality or race, which is why, I think, people root for athletes more that come from their country, even though they may not necessarily be the best or entertaining.

I also think sports as a business is intelligent because the big, big branding of these teams and athletes makes people emotionally attached to them. This idea is similar to topics from previous texts in which people bandwagon on things that others seem to want to buy and that buying something that others has given them a sense of “oneness” with the group.

Comparing the pros and cons: on one hand, sports does promote a sense of belonging, allows talented individuals the opportunity to make an income, and teaches us that wrongdoing does not happen without consequences. However, on the other, it emphasizes racism and sexism, the imbalanced distribution of income, and endangers athletes who are not the best in their field, thus prompting them to use performance-enhancing drugs. So, thinking about it further, it makes me wonder if the idea of sports is even beneficial to our society at all. After all, aren’t we just fighting with ourselves over nothing? Because while we fight about if the ball fell behind the line in court, this energy could have been used to solve the problems that face our society today instead.

The reality is, that life, like sports, is rarely an even playing field, despite what people say. However, just like athletes who won and fought for their place in the industry, we need to fight for our place in society despite others wanting to bring us down. Never throw in the towel and never give up.

I find the experiences the author talks about to be quite intriguing. I cannot imagine what it is like living in a time like that because nowadays, people do not usually tolerate racism against others. You would immediately canceled or punished if you turned an issue into something about race or gender in the modern world. Although we have come a long way, many statistics and data show that black people are still treated more harshly than white people are. Although racism is not as blatant as it was back then, I think the justice system and bureaucracy still lean one way more than the other.

In that case, I agree with the author that denying race is not a practical suggestion or solution. The reality is that we were all born in different circumstances and from different families, and there are things in life that happen to us that lead us to the situation we are in. Embracing our similarities and differences is important and I think forgetting our own identity would do a disservice to ourselves and the people who knew us growing up. Then again, this raises the question: should we be someone who we are not to gain the opportunities we may have attained if we were someone else?

These ideas resonate with me as an immigrant, because I always question whether I should “change” who I am to get the better things in life or should I just be myself and wait for things meant to be mine come. I think it is cruel and horrible that we may be denied opportunities for being for what we are. Probably for many people of color, that was what came between them and accomplishing their dreams back then, and unfortunately, even until today.

Through this text, I realize that members of radical organizations are just scared and fearful about change. Perhaps they come from experiences or crises in their lives that hurt them deeply and traumatized them and have scars in their lives that have not fully healed. This is like a hark back to the reading about sports or consumption where people have a sense of membership if they are part of a group that have the same interests or consumption habits as them. They feel like they belong in the group and have a purpose in life because they are surrounded by people who feel the same way, which reinforces the idea that what they are doing is justified and right. This does not absolve any wrongdoings they have done – I do not feel sympathy for what the Nazi’s have done to the Jews, and some laws and systems around the world favor one race or sexuality and sometimes blatantly deny others – but I think through this reflection, it allows us to reflect on our own ideas and morals.

I agree with the ideas of the text, in which in every one of us, there is a racist of us that we wish doesn’t exist. I admire the author of the text, because in the face of isolation and rejection, they pushed through and continued with their research. I think one thing that is not really taught often is asking “why” we feel the way we feel. I hear a lot about accepting our emotions, but rarely questioning them and reflecting on the root or cause. I agree with the idea that rather than denying race exists, we need to accept the part of us that is fundamentally racist – after all, we are all born in circumstances specific to us, and we grow up learning assumptions and patterns that may only be understood as we grow older. We must not turn away from the worst part of ourselves, but rather get to know and understand them. That way, we can improve ourselves and better the institutions that perpetuate negativity and injustice in our world today to make a better world for tomorrow.

I think music is one of the best types of art form. Beats and melodies transcend language and imagery, so I think it’s possible for a group of people to understand and enjoy good music even if they have totally different backgrounds and ethnicities. I do understand that different cultures deem different music “good”, and generally everyone has preferences, but what I meant is that technically no words are needed to make a good piece anyone can appreciate.

I think music as a thing to consume is interesting. After all, our tastes define what artists put out, and what artists put out define our tastes in music. We want variety, but what is familiar is what the majority of people might like too. I find the “breaking out in the music industry” is a very difficult hurdle to overcome, because it is determined by raw talent, but also pure luck. Take Omar Apollo, a young Mexican artist who broke out by uploading his songs to Soundcloud, and then to Spotify. Now, his songs have garnered millions of streams and is a hugely successful artist particularly known for his songs about gay romance (because he is gay). Had he not posted his songs, he would not have broken out and the demand of the songs he makes would not have been clearly identified. Now that he makes these songs and has become popular, he has been invited to many live talk shows and concerts to perform, which makes him even more popular.

The cultural appropriation of music (like hip-hop) is just very complicated. I understand that hip-hop comes from the expression of struggle of African Americans against racism and discrimination, but ever since the existence of the internet, I think the lines between celebration and cultural appropriation has blurred. Honestly, if other countries were to take a part Filipino culture and infuse it into their own, at least for me, I would not mind as long as it does not disrespect the original idea of it. Now if a white person who was born in an environment similar to Bronx today, created music about that time in today’s industry, is that considered cultural appropriation? If a black guy created music and had lyrics about growing up in poverty and crime, but had the privilege to have never experienced it, is that cultural appropriation? I think at this point, it’s not about the race but about the intentions of the artist or consumer when creating music that originates from outside their culture. Which is why, nowadays, when someone says “cultural appropriation” I wonder if it is actually that, or just a blanket for their actual intention… perhaps to treat others unfairly based on their race or ethnicity. Does that sound familiar?

I love music, not only as an art form, but how music can be a way to bring attention to causes that need to be solved in our society. There are thick lines that have been drawn between us because of what has happened in our past – but I think music is one of the few things that transcends these barriers. Regardless of who you are, I think we all can and should enjoy music. Nevertheless, we must pay mind to the past that music gives insight to, so that we can better our world for the future.

Although there were ideas in the text that I have experienced firsthand, there are some others that I cannot relate to. Growing up, I have experienced getting away with more things than girls do. My first cousins (who were girls) would always be scolded by my aunt for doing things a certain way or for the clothes they wear, while almost every single thing or mistake I have done is usually just repeated back to me in a “softer” manner by other relatives (my mother was relentless, though). However, the idea of “sissies” did not really resonate with me at all. I was never one to hate someone who was weak or viewed as an outsider, and so I wonder who taught guys that it would be okay to bully others for the way they are. Maybe it is an American thing, but in the Philippines, sure you would get a few bullies here and there, but never to a point where groups of boys would taunt or fight the “strange” kid.

I also never got to the point where I was intrigued by people of the opposite gender in high school. Perhaps it is because I am a man raised in a world of women – these women include my mother, grandmother, cousins, aunts, relatives, first friends and even my dentist and doctor too. Meanwhile, the people in my life that comprise the “male” figure are either lazy, distant, and unfortunately, passed away so maybe I was not taught what being a “man” is in the traditional sense to begin with. Whether sexuality is biological or sociological is a different topic though, but honestly, I think it is okay that my little world is a bit different from others.

The text was an interesting insight to the way boys are brought up to prepare them for “domination” in the real world. However, like the text states, these are just the basic experiences that many guys growing up could relate to. Real life is much messier, and roles and expectations change throughout generations and our lifetimes. So, what does it mean to be a man and grow up expected to be one? I think the answer to that is much more unclear than it has ever been.

I think globalization and social media have both improved and hurt this movement for women to accept the way they look. Social media are outlets for women to break and fight against these standards, and it can be a place where women can gather to talk about their insecurities and receive compassion and empathy from others who feel the same way. At the same time though, many big companies use models with the “ideal way” a woman is expected to look like, while people who do not fit those standards feel pressured by society to look a certain way. I wonder if it is even ethical for companies to prey on young teenagers’ insecurity to make them buy a product that will probably not change the way they look.

However, although I do think that you need to accept the way you look, you should still maintain your health with the intention of staying healthy. What I do not understand nowadays is this idolization of plus-sized models. I mean, more power for these people’s confidence, but I think beauty (or, at least beauty by their standards) should not compromise health, and affirming people, regardless of gender, that obesity is alright is just cruel.

I just wonder how this cycle of unreachable beauty standards can be stopped, and why girls in particular are mostly obsessed by it. I cannot say for sure, but I think we have seen more pushback today against this than any other time in history. This culture is toxic and a catalyst for bullying, and it is just sad knowing that there are people who think they cannot be loved by anyone else because of the way they look and may end up taking their lives because of it. Honestly, I think everyone is beautiful in their own right, and self-acceptance starts by looking inwards rather than seeking validation from other people. I wish and hope more mothers are teaching that to their daughters nowadays.

When boys play, they like to play rough, fight, insult a lot and like to defy and break rules. I think this is the case because growing up, boys are less criticized by parents when they exhibit this behavior and rule it out as “boys just being boys”. Sometimes I wonder what would happen if we treated girls the way they treat boys for a couple of generations – would their attitudes shift or does something biological prevent them from changing?

The idea that homophobic behavior is interesting because it seems that one force that encourages children to heterosexuality comes from other children. I think it is also because boys look to their parents as role models for love and attraction, so maybe that sets their expectations of what they should seek in a partner and see everything and everyone else as weird. Maybe this is also why there is this internalized homophobia for people growing up who later realize that they are homosexual.

On the other hand, when girls play, they seem to play more collaboratively than competitively and are more intimate and empathetic in relationships. I think this is the case because girls are raised (maybe intentionally or not) to cate to men and balance out their aggressiveness with understanding and compassion. This may be because of this assumption that women are weaker than men, so they should not be as intense or strong as them. Again, I wonder what would happen if we raised boys like girls for a couple of generations? Would boys still be perceived as dominant as girls?

I also found the idea of “infection” and “disease” between boys and girls interesting, and how typically these are associated with girls more than boys. Perhaps I was just ignorant, but growing up, I never noticed that kind of behavior in my classmates, and I definitely think “cooties” is an American thing. I wonder if this observation can be seen in other cultures, or if this idea of disease is classism and discrimination taught by parents of a certain culture, personified?

The text is a very descriptive and interesting observation of how children practice gender segregation from a very young age. However, my question is: is such behavior social in nature, in the sense that it is taught to us growing up, or is it something more instinctual that drives us this way?

With this reading, I wonder why such a divide between male and female communication exists. Why are women oftentimes being put down by men in conversations? Perhaps this harks back to power and dominance in society, where women are seen as weaker than men and men desire dominance over everything and everyone else. I think the result of that is the way typical men talk nowadays – with power the expectation that they are the dominant one in the room. This relationship affects almost every aspect and interaction between men and women, one of them includes communication. This makes me wonder, if we raise and treat everyone equally, regardless of gender, would communication be clearer and more efficient?

With all these examples though, I do think some of the nuances of communication listed are not exclusive to one kind of sex. After all, just because someone does not thank you, doesn’t mean they are a guy, and if they are more apologetic, doesn’t mean they are a woman. I just feel like it would be a bit unfair to assume the worst out of others in conversation, so it is important to understand the way people of different sex talk, but to not solely rely on your knowledge about them unless you’ve actually conversed with them.

Overall, I think styles and differences in language and conversation are what make us unique but makes understanding one another a bit more difficult. I agree with the conclusion of the text: to get your message across, it matters not who is right, but if we able to understand what each other means through the words we use.

From the moment you exit your mother’s womb, throughout your adulthood and until you die, your appearances determine how you are treated by other people. If you are a beautiful child, you would be thought by your teachers to be smarter, and more well-behaved and the text says that parents should be worried about this. I find this part to be a bit tragic, because although I do agree that all children should be treated equally in school, the parents of these unattractive kids are probably not attractive themselves, and they may be treated just as unfairly by the principal as the teacher to their child. The most devastating part for me was the part where you would be more successful in your career if you were 6 feet or taller. As an Asian, it is comforting to know that I may be denied life-changing opportunities for not passing the height measure you find at county fairs.

I find that this “problem” of beauty, if it even is one, is very difficult to solve because I think it is human instinct to prefer beautiful things to ugly ones. From a video by Kurgesagt (https://youtu.be/-O5kNPlUV7w?si=v0EhD94pfybdTe8a) about beauty, identifying beauty was a skill needed by our ancestors to survive. It is in our instinct to prefer symmetrical and clean things because that was how our ancestors determined if something was safe, stable, or not. I think this idea of beauty having influence is why some people turn to plastic surgery - where they purposely modify parts of their body or face to make it look on par to beauty standards today (or at least, to their believed standard of beauty). Perhaps, to a degree, it does work, however, this option is not available to everyone because plastic surgery is expensive, and excessive plastic surgery can have the opposite effect because if it is obvious, people may think you are insecure.

If beauty is a privilege, where does that leave the ugly? It is ethical to allow beautiful people to get what they want, while others are critically judged for not looking like them? If you think about it, beauty is like the opposite of money – the more you work, the less you have of it. So how do we solve the social problem of beauty that is, inherently, rooted biologically? Perhaps this is one flaw of humans that can never be resolved, because it is in human nature to compare and make hierarchies. Like what the text said, I also think that by being aware of this innate discrimination in all of us, we can prevent this from happening.

From my answers, race is something that people identify as in relation to either the country they were originally born in, their parent’s race, by the color of their skin or a mix of all three. Although, there seems to be confusion between “race” and “ethnicity” because some gave answers that are may or may not necessarily be races. My respondents knew that race that they are because they were told explicitly by family members, they noticed the culture growing up or their parents forced it upon them through the way they live or communicate. Most of them didn’t really think about whether race was even a “choice” but took whatever they were told and observed as the truth.

What does it mean to say that race is socially constructed?

I think it means that race was created, not by biological means but, by society as a way to organize groups of people depending on the color of their skin. Perhaps people that say this could also mean that race was created by the bourgeoisie (people in higher power) in order to distinguish them from the proletariat (“untouchables” or people who are enslaved) and establish hierarchy and power. After all, back in the olden times of imperialism and colonialism, white people enslaved black and brown people, so perhaps race was created in order to maintain this relationship where lighter-skinned people are above everyone else.

Some of my respondents said that race is determined by the way you look, speak and dress, while some others say that race is from the color of your skin or from your cultural heritage. I think this answer is interesting because I think the way you dress and look could either say everything or nothing about what your race is. If you have someone wearing a white shirt and jeans, how are you supposed to determine what kind of race you or the other person is? I think there are some gaps and assumptions in the minds of some of my responses that made them answer this way. My respondents also said that race is not something you determine what others are, but by the person you are observing themselves. Many of them said that to determine someone else’s race, you simply ask them or let them tell you. However, some of them have said that they have been in situations where they felt embarrassed because they assumed the other person spoke a certain language because they assumed their race.

I think nowadays, people respect other races the most. Race is not necessarily a prerequisite for becoming successful or gaining power and influence anymore. That is not to say racism and discrimination is not prevalent in our society today – in fact, I think racism has taken a new form where it isn’t as explicit and obvious but runs deep within our governments and society. However, with the boom of globalization and light to social movements, I think the relationship between racism and privilege is being scrutinized and dismantled now more than ever before.  

I think the idea of gender equality vs gender equity is being explored mostly in this chapter; should we treat men and women equally or treat them based on their sex? I think the grievances of the male soldiers are not unfounded, after all, I would also question the ability of my coworker if they were hired on the basis of a test objectively easier than what I had to endure. However, I do disagree with many of their statements about how the army should not accept female soldiers on the basis that they are “women”. Women can do as much as any other person can do, and if they can prove themselves, they should be able to serve.

I think the problem with the army is the culture itself.  As much as the leaders of the army try to dispel it, the army culture itself was originally established as a “man’s” job. Even until now, I think this expectation is still there and being continuously exacerbated because of the sexists that join the army, which reinforces the negative stereotype that only men are meant to be there.

However, if you think about it, back then, almost all high-profile jobs were considered a “man’s” responsibility, up until the Civil Movement that allowed women to work alongside men. If that were the case, how come the rest of society has come to accept women more into the workforce while the army still lags behind? Perhaps misogyny is more deeply rooted in the army than what the surface reveals. I think this little “man’s club” can be compared to opposing political party groups where one party demonizes the other for opposing their ideas. In this case, the army is demonizing women to uphold the values that they desperately want to impose onto others.

Perhaps, in another sense, you can say that the stigma that women are weaker than men still prevail until today and is present in all of us, despite our best efforts to suppress it. When you think of a superhero, I bet you the first thing you think of is a male superhero. Superman, Batman, Captain America: these examples, whether intentional or not, reinforce the assumption that it is always a man who will get the job done right. As much as we try to change our own beliefs, there are many factors outside of our control that shape the way we perceive sex and power.

This is why I think there will never be a time where women would be considered equal to men, because I think men and women DO have biological differences that cannot be denied. I think it is all a matter of balance and harmony – I mean in the sense of accepting and rejecting changes and differences between us and others. I do think that denying women the same rights as men – whether legally or socially – is unfair and unfounded. At the end of the day, you are in the army for one purpose – to serve and sacrifice for the betterment of humanity: for people regardless of who they are.

The toy store I went to with a friend a while ago was a card store called “Dragon Den’s Game”. I noticed that there weren’t really any defining features that separated boy’s and girl’s toys because all of the shelves were painted black. The card containers were also mostly black with foil to make it look shiny. In a way, I think the way the games are displayed looks like they cater from boys to gender-neutral.

I also remember back in the Philippines, in the Toys-R-Us store, it was separated into baby-girls-boys-consoles from front to back. Baby toys were indicated because of the colorful rainbow and white pattern across the shelves and displays. The girls’ toys were literally all pink or light purple, while the boys’ toys were blue, but also a mix of black and gray and red. Gender neutral toys were across the wall – these were board games – and the shelves were brown and displayed the games flat so you could see the entire from covers.

My first toy

The first toy I remember having was this stuffed turtle toy that I used to sleep with every night. I think one of my aunts gave it to me, and I have been inseparable from my turtle for the most part of my elementary years. Through the reading, I realized that I preferred boy-ish toys (aside from the turtle, I had building blocks, automatic toy cars, Jenga, little army med), and I think it reflects on my personality and masculinity today. I remember one time when I wanted this Tamogatchi toy, which was a “hand-held digital pet” that was catered mostly to girls (at least, the kinds I saw in the toy-store at that time). I guess I was aware that there were toys that were “meant” to be for boys and girls separately, so I suggested to my mother that she should buy the toy for herself as a sneaky way to make her buy it for me. I remember not being explicitly interested in the theming of the toy, but rather the technology of it itself, because I have been very into technology since I was a child. Alas, my fool-proof plan did not work, and my mother grumbled that the toy is not “meant for me”.

The idea of color associated with sex is interesting, where blue is for boys and pink if for girls. I find this idea most intriguing because I think society would not mind if girls wore something blue but would question a boy wore something bright pink. Pink is just such a bright color that you rarely see in nature except for flowers, which is often associated with femininity as well. Compared to blue, it really stands out, so I am wondering if the creators of this association were trying to say girls, like pink, are outliers and pains to our eyes? Perhaps this source of criticism and eyesore for this color is also why pink is such an iconic color when it comes to fighting for causes in our society today. Like for example, in the LGBTQ community, the pink triangle or the pink in the binary flags, or in that scene from Legally Blonde where Elle wore a pink suit to challenge the lawyers who doubted her. Color choice is such an interesting topic, because the ideas associated with a specific color may be tied to the color itself.

I do notice that toys can be a way to impose expectations of how each gender should look and behave and may be the avenues where parents can fulfill their idealized gender fantasies. The idea that “girls” toys encourage women to be more nurturing, while “boy” toys encourage boys to be more powerful is something I never thought of. As a result, women may prefer to work in “nurturing” occupations, which nowadays, are compensated less than the “powerful” jobs that boys are expected to work in. I do not think it is right to tell a child what to like and how to behave (in the gender-sense, I mean). However, at the same time, I think if you give children the liberty to do whatever they want, toys can be a great way of expressing and discovering their interests and desires.

The concept of “doing gender” is also very fascinating. It says that instead of shaping our behaviors or what we do based strictly on gender, we should live life without that expectation and let our actions dictate our identity. I think we all have masculine and feminine features within us, so to live life only showing one side is like hiding who you truly are, and personally, I think that is a very depressing way to live.

Toys can also reveal to us not only the gender inequalities, but the socioeconomic inequalities present in our world too. However, like what the text says, toys can also be a way for children with different socioeconomic backgrounds to forge friendships in school. Also, the way toys are restrained from us also maybe also the way we perceive finances and resources in our adulthood.

Toys are a double-edged sword. Although they allow children the space for creativity, social interaction, and expression, they still act as expectations of what children should want, behave, and associate with based on their gender or class. I think the strides we have made in making toys more accessible and available for all sexes or genders are steps in the right direction towards a society where we can live without expectations and pressure based on our identity. To prefer pink or blue should not matter, because we live in a world full of color and diversity.  

 This makes me wonder if those complaining that the 19^th century was a better time were misogynists or genuinely believed it to be true. It’s like when your grandparents say that children used to go out more in their time than today. Sure, grandpa they did, but they were also either abused, forced into child labor, had dead siblings, had divorced parents or were orphans. I guess reminiscing about the past, you’d rather think about the good times than the bad.

I think the fact that less children are dying, and more are graduating high school is reason enough to believe this era is the best time to live in. Plus, the significance of more children going to school is that they are able to work in higher-paying jobs and if they have a family, they will not have to worry too much about finances. The fact is that, just like it was mentioned in discussions in previous chapters, poverty-stricken families affects not only finances, but other factors like health, culture, behavior, and the possible financial situation of their children are affected too.

It is also nice that fathers are spending more time with their children. Gone are the times where the man has to make all the money solely himself (although, there are still cases like that today), and children can grow up with a relationship with their dads. I think distant fathers make for insecure, aggressive, and resentful children, so knowing that fathers AND mothers can finally work together to raise their children is encouraging.

The fact that single women can raise children on their own too is reassuring. My mother was a single mother who had to raise not only me, but her parents too. She had to dig deep to keep us afloat, and although I was not in the best financial situation growing up, food was placed on the table and a roof over our heads. Had she had the opportunities women have today in her time, I think we would have been more better off and she, less stressed out. Plus, less teenagers are getting pregnant and people are paying child support more than ever.

I am glad America has given families more opportunities to make families work out – opportunities that you wouldn’t typically see in most third-world countries like where I came from. I think with the rise of media and the internet, problems in the family are more and more brought into light, which is also why I think people believe there are more problems today than ever before. I think the more we talk about our problems, the better we can collaborate with others to find a solution.

I think the situation in prisons can also relate to the concept of class and structure in society. Like how we structure ourselves based on class, perhaps there are classes that exist in prison too: the prisoners and the guards. Like how classes in society work, each have their own culture and ways to assimilate themselves in their own class.  For example, other guards may join in the abuse of prisoners because they see certain guards do it. Higher classes may also have the resources to control the lower classes. For example, guards may break up prisoners into different cells to avoid collaboration and rebellion against them.

Then again, maybe you can describe prison more as a caste system than a class, because the class you were in when you entered the prison will be the class you will remain in for the rest of your time there. I think the reason why (most) guards do not feel that their actions would not have repercussions is because the roles will never flip against them. However, I think smarter guards would be wise to know that this system exists only in prison, and if they and the freed prisoner were dropped in real life, anything would be fair game.

I think this mentality can apply to real life too. In times when we feel sad, depressed, or trapped, our attitudes and behaviors change in a way that may exacerbate these feelings further. If we let self-loathing or despair take over our lives, we can end up at the bottom of an uncontrollable spiral. However, being aware of our own situation and habits, we can take steps to break out of our hole and come into the light. I also think being kind to others is important because kindness can be passed on from one to another, and maybe a good deed might be enough to bring someone out of the darkness.

The way we set up our prisons in the United States today shames prisoners and develops resentment within them. By the time they are released, their perception of the world is twisted, which may cause them to do something that may hurt or kill others or make someone else see the way they see the world themselves. I think the path to rehabilitation is compassion; Its caring about the people in their lowest and helping them get up back on their feet. If we can break out of this jail society has imprisoned us, we can finally start working as a species to rid the world of injustice and wrongdoing.

From this reading, I wonder if living in a socially constructed world is even good for us. If we are always caught up in the idea of resolving our differences in beliefs and values, I do not think we would ever surpass that and come to a point where we can work together to advance humanity as a species. Then again if society weren’t socially constructed, hard rules would be imposed regardless of the situation we were in. For example, if we agreed as a species that cannibalism is bad, and we made it illegal because of the fact, those people would probably not have eaten their comrades and perished in the Andes.

Every now and then, I come across articles of kids being kidnapped and being forced to live in their kidnapper’s basement for years, or children found in the forest who have survived, but exhibit behaviors like animals. I am not sure what are the outcomes of these discoveries, I hear they are either rehabilitated and successfully assimilated back into society, or never recover. I have a couple of questions in mind about this: Can humans be convinced of anything? Or are there innate beliefs within us that we cannot change? If that is so, what causes these things to be permanently engraved in our minds? If the survivors in the Andes somehow lived on eating human flash in the mountains for years or decades, would they be able to assimilate back to society?

The story of the Andes is a great example of human social behavior. Although our beliefs are shaped by our experiences and interactions with others, we can change and convince ourselves to believe other things depending on the situation. Humans are flexible and plastic, and when faced with the elements, will adapt to their environment to ensure survival.

Bias towards diagnosis may be a result of the kind of environment that the healthcare workers are in. In the previous reading about prisoners and guards, where in an experiment to IMITATE the role of being a prisoner or guard, test subjects ended up embodying the role, going so far as to behave like one, despite not actually being in a prison. Perhaps this situation is similar in the sense that psychiatrists and healthcare workers are more likely to diagnose a patient because of the expectation that patients who go psychiatric hospitals are already sick. I also agree with the text’s idea that because patients were labeled as having a certain disease, they start embodying this disease and molding their identity around it. Friends and family members who know about a person’s disease might treat them differently too, which can exacerbate feelings of being sick, when maybe they might not, even further.

Personally, as a health worker, I believe type 2 errors are much safer than type 1 errors. After all, if signs point to a certain illness or disease, you might as well try and test your theory by diagnosing in the chance that it may be true. If your diagnosis is wrong, it is likely that the symptoms point to another, maybe related, disease that can be found accidentally BECAUSE the patient was tested for another reason. However, I never knew that psychological diagnosis sticks with you for the rest of your life, because it could have a drastic impact on the patient’s social life after discharge.

It is interesting of the idea of psychosis and mental illness because it is a fact that we live in a socially constructed world. Ideas of insanity are completely subjective because human behavior is erratic and complicated. We do not have the technology to determine if or when someone is considered insane. Then again, perhaps it is a good idea that this “idea” of schizophrenia exists, despite us not being able to prove is conclusively. After all, through years of experimentation and the application scientific method, we have discovered many different ways to help, and even treat, people with these kinds of diseases. Yes, such diagnosis is not the same case-to-case for each human – which is why I think we need to keep on examining even more and more patients, so that we can come up with patterns that help up to treat these patients correctly (or as best as we can). I understand that diagnosis for mental illness is not perfect, but isn’t it better that we have something to go on, than nothing at all?

Then again, perhaps we need to take a different approach - a social approach - to mental health through programs like the anonymous support groups and 12-step programs. Perhaps the idea that anyone from any class or race can be affected by mental health is reassuring that we are not alone.

The implications are also valid, because if we cannot exactly tell if someone is insane or not, then how are we to trust our beloved justice system – the most decisive thing humanity has ever created? I would like to think opposite, because although it is wrong for someone to be convicted wrongly for something they didn’t do, or the opposite, the methodology in which we determine if someone is of sound mind or not is the best we can do for now. I think nothing is perfect, and the best thing we can do is keep on experimenting, documenting our observations, and experimenting again… and again. After all, human behavior is just as arbitrary and unpredictable as everything else in the universe.

What norms were being violated by this person?  Did you know those norms were “there”?  Where is this “there?’

·        She violated the norm that workers of dialysis clinics were meant to be respectful to their coworkers and to the patients. At 5am, it was also expected that everyone be quiet to let the patients get some rest. I knew they were there (as in, the workplace I am working at) because not only they were taught to me in classes about handling patients, but just normal decency and respect that I learned growing up.

How were the norms specific to the person’s social status (age, gender, race, class, etc.)?

·        The norms were specific to her because she was around 30, a female, white but not too high of a socioeconomic status. You would think people at that age knew what it is like to be mature and respectful, and women, less abrasive and noisy than men, and her race, were less intense.

Are there situations in which these behaviors might appear rational?  Describe them.  What is the significance of this?

·        Perhaps if we were understaffed, some drama happened in the clinic or a patient or coworker was rude to her, it would be normal because I would feel stressed out in these situations myself, and my mood would change. These situations are not expected to happen in the clinic, because you would expect everyone to be cooperative and your bosses, coworkers, and patients to be respectful to you.

Can you imagine a situation where you might behave similarly and not think of yourself as “weird or “crazy?”

·        I thought I was crazy when almost every single time I go to work for a couple of weeks, something always bad happens to me which stressed my out and ruined me day. I thought that someone was either messing with me, or that I did something to make the karma lords mad.

How did the label (“weird,”  “crazy,” etc.) affect how you perceived the situation and the person?  How did the label affect your interaction with or feelings about the person?

·        I think labeling my coworker as crazy allowed me to think less that the way she acted was the way she is actually when she is not crazy. Instead of analyzing why she is the way she is, it was a fast way for me to set it aside for some arbitrary reason, so I can focus on my work, while assuring myself that I am NOT the crazy one in the clinic.

·        Instead of criticizing my coworker for acting out the way she did, I go with the flow and reply to her in the same enthusiasm or craziness as she does with me. I think it made the day much more fun, less stressful, and although some patients may have gotten frustrated that there were two shouting people now, it helped move my day along without resistance or conflict. Essentially, her craziness made me crazy myself.

The text describes how it is necessary and encouraged to use violence to apprehend a criminal in the “streets”, compared to what is “on paper” where police training is formal with legality in mind. Like in the army, it seems like the police force is very patriarchal, in which a job like this is associated with masculinity. It is interesting to read about women having to “prove” themselves that they can handle the job. Their academic achievement is disregarded by the perception that women in general are “weak and frail”, and so in the attempt to demonstrate their competency by using force, may end up excessively using it instead. Police officers who are hesitant or do not use force are also outcasted by their peers and considered unreliable. This is interesting because these ideas are related to class and social structure. In the sense that classes have their own culture; in this case, using force is a way for new recruits to assimilate with the other police officers, as it is the “common thread” the binds them together.

I think, like anything socially constructed, people’s perception of police violence is varied because not only with the circumstances the event occurred but by the individual’s beliefs and upbringings on violence. If a child, growing up, has seen violence and abuse around them, they may be less sensitive to violent actions from the police than someone who has been raised never seeing much about it.

I think anything that has ever happened never happens in a bubble. There will always be circumstances that may have led to the happening of an event, and so I think it is important to be aware of these before judging what action is most appropriate. However, I think human life should be preserved, no matter who you are, so when using force that may lead to killing someone, I think it is best to err on the side of life. Perhaps the use of force is another way of keeping the social structures in place too. I think the “police” think of themselves more highly regarded over “citizens” more so for “criminals”, and so if police never use some sort of way to keep the lesser in line, the hierarchy would be broken, and no one would take them seriously.

Then again, how do we even know if excessive force by a police officer is driven by noble intentions? Perhaps force is more than just criminals and justice, and maybe driven by other factors like race or class that make them more violent than they really should.  Take George Floyd’s situation – was it necessary for Derek Chauvin, the officer involved in the incident – to go as far as he went? Was his intention noble or something more sinister? I think this topic is interesting because it gets me thinking if intentions matter, if our actions reflect the opposite of what we want. In a world of subjectivity, driven by objective laws, how do we determine if something is right or wrong?

In terms of how this reading relates to class in society, I think the specific class size and location where it was conducted allowed for a much more thorough curriculum for the kindergarten kids. However, in other countries, especially Third World ones, most children don’t have the privilege to have the same quality of education due to a lack of support in the education system. So in the end, teachers often get class sizes bigger than they can control and maybe unable to effectively teach all the children about control and compliance. This may lead to some students feeling indifferent to education and so when they grow up, feel the need to not take school seriously. Thinking about it in a macro perspective, inefficient workers result to the reduction of a country’s efficiency, damaging their economy, and thus, less budget to spend on the improvement of said education system. The result is more children in classrooms and less teachers to teach them.

Meanwhile, children of much more wealthier families are able to get a better quality of education compared to those who cannot. In the end, wealthier children are able to get better jobs and occupations while poor children may not, and thus the cycle of poverty continues within their families.

I find the idea of compliance and standardization of school a bit contradictory to progress because instead of enabling students to think creatively, and therefore innovatively, we are programming them to comply like robots. Then again, maybe we need more compliers to do the simple tasks that creators don’t have time to do (a little hark back to the idea of a previous reading that being poor has their uses).

I never really realized how vital kindergarten is to an individual's development and independent thinking. Kindergarten has a bigger purpose than just nap time and stories, and that the kind of institution you put your child in from this point onward may determine if they are successful or not in the future.

The role of men in beauty standards today is very prominent. I think the world being patriarchal allows men the power to dictate the normal standard of beauty, and the media and advertisements influence the way we perceive it. Racism is embedded deeply in beauty culture because of this expectation that whiteness is always associated with beauty, and that there is this need for other cultures to conform to current beauty standards set by this certain race. Although we’ve taken great strides to changing current beauty standards, in magazines, you would still usually find women of different skin colors with prominently white features.

I think I also agree with the idea that beauty demonstrates power hierarchies in our world. After all, there’s still this stigma around strength, based on your race, and the kind of clothes that you wear. This is also this assumption that beauty is related to feminine characteristics, such as passivity, inactivity and submissiveness. There result is that attractive women may be perceived as weak or frail while men interested in fashion do not have a sense of masculinity.

Weight is a big factor in beauty standards today. Magazines alter the way we perceive what is the ideal and normal weight considered to be acceptable. In reality, the average American woman is never depicted in fashion and unrealistic standards make women and men feel insecure about themselves. Thin bodies are not necessarily healthy and like that text says, part of the reason of this focus on weight is for companies to encourage people to buy items to realize their ideas, instead of focusing what people can do individually to improve themselves. I have also seen different movements for the empowerment of obese bodies which I find very interesting, considering that obesity is a huge problem (or at least considered by scientists) in the United States.

Beauty can also demonstrate the political economic structures we can find in our society today. Women of marginalized communities are being exploited for cheap labor in the fashion industry. I was very surprised to see how little a fashion model makes, despite the fact that you can see them in billboards almost everywhere.

I think it is ironic about the narrowness of beauty standards today because although there is this demand for unique and accurate accurately – represented bodies in marketing, many companies, still hire models who fit the conventional beauty standards as a safe bet.

It’s interesting, because beauty ideals are different but similar everywhere. Sure, each country society may have their own consideration of what they consider beautiful, it is undeniable that the influence of the West has changed beauty standards and expectations. I think it is important to remember the beauty does not come only physically, but from the heart as too.

• Sex - predominantly very pretty women, rarely men (1 out of 50 posts), however men look pretty androgenous, so they portray some feminine features.

• Race - mostly white, fair or light skin, about 30% dark skinned. I recognize some celebrities that are Latino, and the way they edit their photos make them look white. Redhead, blonde or brunettes mostly.

• Weight - Skinny and fit mostly, but there was one girl who was "fat", but actually pregnant. Almost not a single ounce of fat on anyone.

From this mini-analysis, Vogue mostly posts light-skinned, thin, gorgeous women on their Instagram feed. Yes, there is the occasional dark-skinned or male posts, but most of their features look white, which still conform to the beauty standard they coincidentally prefer.

I find it fascinating that motivation for marriage has changed over the years. From practicality to genuine love, it seems that people nowadays are less inclined to get married, and would prefer to live as an individual. Perhaps this is the result of changing tides within gender equality, in which women are now more accepted into the workforce, and therefore do not have to rely on a man to support themselves.

I think weddings are a bit ironic, considering that, even though this is a ceremony meant for both the bride and groom, the event itself is still associated with femininity. Apparently, the wife is the center of attention of the event and there is this expectation for them to consider this the most important day of their lives. Perhaps this came from the assumption that women are the ones to do all the work the husband does not do and so is assumed that women are the general organizers and planners for these kinds of events. While the husband works as the breadwinner of the family, the woman has to deal with everything else it comes with it.

It is also interesting that there is this stigma that weddings are only associated with straight couples. Even with the rise and the legalization of same-sex weddings in the modern era, this heteronormative assumption still remains.

I think weddings encourage consumerism. Despite the event only lasting a single day, people are willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars just to have it. I think part of this reason is this expectation from other people for you to have a lavish wedding to celebrate the start of your marriage. In a way, how much a couple spends for a wedding could also be a way to establish where on the social hierarchy you want others to perceive you are at. Personally, I find white weddings are pretty expensive and could end up negatively impacting the marriage in the future. The money that was used in weddings could have been used for other things that come down the line during marriage for children for housing or for honeymoon.

I think in the end it should not matter what kind of wedding you will have. I understand there are social structures and phenomenon that pressure new couples have this kind of marriage, but in the end, it could make or break your marriage down the line.

I think I want this kind of wedding because I come from quite a poor family from the Philippines. I do not have the kind of wealth some of my friends have, so I do not want to lavishly spend money on something that only happens one day. Perhaps the idea of a large homosexual wedding also scares me as a Filipino because homosexual marriage has not yet been legalized in the Philippines, and I want to keep it lowkey. I have also been thinking about having two weddings - one traditional one in the Philippines, and a Western one here in the United States.