Long story short, I am taking this class to fulfill some requirements, but I am taking this class in order to learn more about how the world works, because in terms of experience, I have almost none.

I sat in the front of the cafe, by the door. The first time I came, this entire area was taken up by live music! It was really neat, there were a group of queer musicians and I enjoyed their music, but I think they got robbed that day, so I'm assuming that is why Terra doesn't have live music anymore.

Nonetheless, the atmosphere is still inviting. The baristas and workers were very sweet when talking to people and taking orders (mine personally was a matcha latte with vanilla syrup), and for the most part people were kind back to them. I saw a lot of people come and go; they were of all races, ages, and genders. I do think that this coffee shop caters to a younger generation, as the music and decor were both relatively modern. They played a playlist full of recent hits and decorated with neon lights and plants, all associated with new trends.

Sitting by the door, I had a good view of everyone who entered and left. I felt like most of the people were friendly, because when I made eye contact with them and smiled as they walked out most of them smiled back, Of course, not everybody did, but the majority did which is a win for me! There were some people who looked like they were angry or impatient, so I assumed that they had somewhere to be and were waiting on their orders. For the most part, the air was friendly, there was laughter and chatter in the background of my music as I worked. Strangers didn't really talk to each other, other than to ask each other to pass a straw or if an outlet was open for them to plug their laptops in while studying. I saw there were people on dates, people studying, and some people just sipping on lattes by themselves (like me!) I don't think anyone or any groups of people were more welcome here, again it felt very inviting and I really enjoyed it.

I interacted with nice people and had a good time, I really liked Terra Coffee!

A few years ago, I attended an equality conference, and they talked about high schools that had no-tolerance policies. In those, they talked about how no-tolerance policies actually weren't beneficial, they just made it more likely for people to go to juvie or even jail if they are charged as adults. I remember them saying that Black people historically have been the most harmed by no-tolerance policies, because aside from already having high incarceration rates, they have higher rates of breaking rules in school such as fighting. When the concept of jail is early or threatened as early as high school, people start thinking that is all there is to life.

This goes to my next point, life after incarceration. In this day and age, you obviously need money. You need a place to live, you need food. If people aren't allowed to get jobs as ex-convicts, they may become desperate. And in some cases, they may think the only way out is to go back into jail. For some people, jail is all they know and going back will give them a sense of comfort, a sense that they cannot get when they are constantly rejected or considered less than. For others, the lack of a job may make them become homeless or hungry, and that desperation can make them do bad things. People have committed crimes again to become repeat offenders and go back into jail, just because they know that jail is "safe," they are guaranteed a bed and food everyday.

We need to make it easier for nonviolent offenders and ex-convicts to get back on their feet after they are released.

For me, the way I learn new things is by connecting it to knowledge I already have or to m own life. So, when I learned what ethnography was, I connected it to people watching, and I so love doing that! I'm a huge supporter of any data collection methods that allow someone to go directly into the field and collect their own data; I believe it yields the best results! I've always wanted to know how the world around me works, so things like ethnography are so intriguing to me because just seeing how people interact the way they do is fascinating to me. I always think about what other people around me are thinking, what their lives are and what they are doing with me right now. I saw a post a long time ago that was something along the lines of "I'm at the airport waiting for my flight to Boston right now, why are all of these people flying to Boston right now on a Thursday morning," and all though it was supposed to be silly, it's true! What's happening in your brain to bring you here? I need explanations!!

I obviously won't be able to know anything until I go and actually talk to people, so I love meeting new people and learning about them. I've always been super outgoing, but COVID made me more reserved. I'm saying this I think because survey research and interviews would be very well-suited for me, I think I can connect with people really well. I think it's very fascinating that sociology uses such a vast variety of different methods to gain research, but it makes so much sense. I think just using one or two methods (such as regularly in science) you are limiting yourself, and using many methods gives you stronger data as it is more supported because it is reflected on many different fronts. Being able to use many different methods is a privilege, because you can get the full picture of some aspect of society or anything you are studying. As such, I think sociology and other similar fields that use multiple research methods have a slight advantage in that sense.

I don't really understand why people would be scared of theory, the book describes why people shouldn't be but I don't really get why they are scared in the first place! Like I mentioned before, I love learning why things work, so I'm always searching for explanations and relating things to my own life so I can better understand them. I do this similar to the way that the book explains how people place their experiences "into a conceptual framework." I think one of the things that makes sociology such an unknown subject (at least for me,) is that there is no clear cut answer. I'm someone who likes knowing things as they are, I think that contributes to why I love science so much LOL. I just like being sure, and I think that because sociology is open to interpretation, that makes it more difficult for me. But, it also makes it better, because it makes it more me! I can learn about what society is like from many perspectives and worldviews; I won't be limited.

I think all of the theories of sociology make a lot of sense to me! Firstly, I align very well with symbolic interactionism, I do believe I live in a world filled with meaning and that there is meaning in everything around me. That's why I am searching for meaning around me and in my life. The concept of functionalism is something that I have grown up with as well. I've always heard that everything is important (connecting to the fact that everything has meaning) and has a significant part in society. All of society is connected and intertwined, so we cannot lack in any aspect. Lastly, conflict theory. Personally, I do think this is similar to functionalism in the fact that they both believe that there are multiple aspects of society. However, conflict theory's oneness in the fact that it says that these parts are constantly competing is very fascinating to me! I guess it makes sense, we can see that through history and even nowadays, people and social groups are in competition to be successful or hold on to whatever success they have. I think all 3 of these theories makes sense to me.

I don't want to repeat myself by talking again about the different methods of research that are used in sociology, and especially the set-up of research questions and experiments is similar to the scientific method. I do want to say that I was pleasantly surprised to learn about them just because of how much I did and didn't know going into this.

I was talking to one of my friends after graduation, and he said "normally people say that I match their energy really well and it typically requires a lot of effort on my part, but for you I didn't have to change myself that much or put up a face." That stuck with me for a while, because I agreed! Here we are, two people who are so similar in "putting on a show" for the whole world experiencing the same things. It was really nice to know that someone felt like they could be themselves with me; I liked knowing that someone could get off the stage with me.

This piece really resonated with me because it's nice to have that reinforcement that I am not the only one putting on a show for the world. I am not alone, other people have struggles relating to putting on a front because they have experienced it too. Something that I really struggle with is knowing if I'm a good person or not, do I do good things because I am a good person or because I want people to think I am a good person? I guess that also brings up the question of intention, but that's a conversation for later. I do think putting on a show is a real aspect of humanity, people are constantly feeling like they have to impress each other. Goffman's analysis of society is pretty spot-on, lol.

Learning about how morticians and other undertakers have managed the stigma of funeral work kind of reminds me of when people reclaim words or phrases that were once used against them. There are all these negative stigmas surrounding people who are in the funeral business, but it is still a necessary job, so they don't let it phase them. The ways in which they manage the stigma is not what I expected actually. I have never heard o the phase symbolic redefinition but as I mentioned before their use of euphemisms to talk about death reminds me of them reclaiming the negative stigma around their career. Being able to set boundaries with their work is something I admire a lot because it doesn't allow for a lot of negativity or unfounded criticism; you can't complain about someone who isn't doing anything wrong.

A few months ago, my mom's oldest sister passed away and it was really hard on us. As horrible as it was, my mother was still lucky because all of her siblings are in Bangladesh except for this sister, who was in New York. My mom was able to fly to be with her sister and complete the last rites for her, which in Islam have to be performed by a member of the same gender and typically family (except for those that don't have any family left.) The way my mom described it was bone chilling and heartbreaking, but she did exactly what she needed to for closure. One thing I don't think a lot of people realize is that funeral workers allow families to get closure and be satisfied with the way their loved ones are put to rest. We need to give more credit to people who work with the dead!

I do think this contributes to how the book says, "each person possesses a special combination of qualities and strengths." I think in this day and age, it's easy to reflect who we are inside to the outside world through the way we brand ourselves. The way someone brands themselves and the way they choose to associate with certain things contributes to their presentation of themselves.

Reading this chapter reminded me of when I was younger and my elementary school would have book fairs. There was a book called Coke or Pepsi that had a bunch of different questions for friends to ask each other, and the titular question had all of us arguing! This unlocked a fun memory.

This also reminds me of when people say they have a specific aesthetic that they like the most, that they dress in or decorate their rooms as. Some people like "cottage core," "grunge," or even silly names like "coastal grandma." These are all choices people make to brand themselves and present themselves to the world in different ways.

Trends are constantly changing, and it seems like there is a new influencer or content creator everyday telling you the makeup products that are a "must have" or gushing about the "cutest shoes ever!" Something can become a trend incredibly fast, and it seems like this is especially the case nowadays. A new device or commodity can have thousands of videos made on it in a few days, and suddenly everyone needs it! You aren't considered cool or "with the times" if you don't have it. But because trends change so fast, it isn't practical to constantly buy the newest thing. Some people cannot afford a $300 makeup kit or just simply think there is no point in buying something that they essentially already have.

It does suck though, because people make comments about not owning the newest products. I haven't seen outward bullying, but just a friend commenting on another saying, "oh you don't have the latest New Balances?" It makes other people feel bad and in a way, makes it seem like you consider yourself higher or better than them. People just want to fit in with each other, and I feel like this is just separating them more. We're getting separated into people who are constantly buying new things versus those who cannot. The people on Tiktok who are up to date with buying all of the newest commodities are considered some of the better "influencers," people consider them the most trustworthy.

Honestly, it just seems wasteful. I don't need a new lip gloss every month just because a girl with 10 million followers says I do. But I also know that it'll make me seem cooler, higher in society. It's like collecting the coolest, shiniest trinkets. I feel like it is a bit classist also, just because someone cannot afford to constantly buy unnecessary items doesn't mean they are of lower social status or should be perceived as such.

Alas, I am a victim of this culture, I've bought some stuff to be considered cool.

A time that I purchased something because I wanted to fit in with a group is probably when I first moved to Stockton and wanted to make new friends. I went to my school's freshman orientation and got placed with a group of friends that were all very nice and took me in! But their aesthetic was very grunge and alternative, and mine wasn't really. They were super spiritual in a way I didn't understand, so sometimes I felt left out. They were always talking about aura, crystals, and essential oils and I was always confused. Because of this, I asked one of the girls where I could get some crystals! I bought a piece of rose quartz and one of black tourmaline. Buying those made me think that I would be closer to them, that maybe I would stop being an intruder in their friend group. The girls never made me feel left out, and when I told them I bought the crystals they were talking to me about them and explaining them to me. And it felt nice at first, until I realized that I had no idea what I was doing or what they were talking about. I was feeling just as left out as I was before. They considered me a member, but I felt inauthentic. I knew this wasn't me. As school started, I made more friends and eventually stopped talking to those girls. Last time I checked, their friend group split up, but they each still stay hi to me when we pass each other in the hallways. They were all sweet, but I just felt like a sellout, in a way.

It makes me think about the main question, why are people so obedient? I think there's got to be multiple factors here that contribute or may contribute to how obedient people were to "Mr. Williams." I think there is definitely the need to conform to society as well as to please authoritative figures. Being obedient and listening attentively is something that is considered beneficial to society; it's considered a good trait to have. The test subjects believed that by listening and being obedient, they would be considered

People in the experiment viewed Mr. Williams as authority and because of that listened to him, no matter the harm or cost that came with it. They didn't want to disappoint an authoritative figure, and I think that ties into that need for societal acceptance. If someone in authority is upset or ostracizes you, that is much more significant and damning than if it was someone of your same status.

I cannot say that I am better than these people. As I mentioned before I am a huge people pleaser, but it is exponentially worse with authority. I have this innate NEED for people in authoritative positions to approve of me. If I was in this experiment, it would be awesome to say I have enough morals to stand up for the other person, but I don't know if I would actually be able to do it. It just seems so heartbreaking and selfish to admit that I would let someone get shocked just so some random person wouldn't be disappointed in me. I hope I get the experiences and emotional maturity in life to make me more selfless.

I think fast food workers deserve higher minimum wage. I'm glad that California has enacted their policy that fast food workers will make $20 an hour because frankly, people need to survive. California is already expensive enough, so people need to afford our crazy prizes. I totally support workers' right to unionize. An employee doesn't always have to agree with what corporate does, everyone is their own person. Also, they have the right to fight against unfair policies at work. If they believe something is wrong, they absolutely should unionize and call it out.

I think this reflects a bigger issue however. We need workers of all kinds. Fast food creates jobs that people need and that only people can work at, so why aren't we paying them their worth? Federal fast food wages have barely risen; California raising their wage to $20 is completely unprecedented. Just a few decades ago, minimum-wage used to be enough for someone to support themselves. That is what minimum wage nis: the minimum amount you could make to support yourself and live just comfortably. Nowadays, people need 2+ minimum-wage jobs, and are still finding it hard to support themselves. This is proof of a larger issue, it isn't about $15 or $20, it is about how much we value all people. The system needs to support society better, if inflation can increase so much we need to keep up with the times.

Some things that may encourage the unionization of fast food workers are low wages, poor working conditions, and unfair disadvantages for certain people. They may also be encouraged if they garner a lot of support or if they realize large gatherings support their cause. Some things that may discourage it are retaliation from corporate and economic vulnerability, people may fear losing their jobs if they're living paycheck to paycheck.

The corporate brand I am choosing for this is Apple. Apple is pretty significant in my life because almost all of the devices me and my family use are from Apple.

From my own experiences and what I know, Apple promotes innovation, creativity, and a sleek, modern lifestyle. It suggests that using Apple products makes you more efficient, stylish, and part of an elite group.

Apple encourages people to frequently upgrade to the latest models, I think this is a way of contributing to brand loyalty through its ecosystem of products and services. They often do this by saying new technology and progress contribute to a better quality of life, suggesting that more advanced products and newer products can lead to greater success. This affects consumption habits as people strive to purchase the newest apple products over and over again.

Apple and its messages have definitely achieved a level of hegemony: people don't often second-guess their products or ask a lot of questions. It's common sense for people to use Apple devices. For example, people will commonly upgrade devices when Apple comes out with a new one because they've established of trust and connection with costumers through their messages. However, despite its trustworthy image, Apple has faced criticism for the working conditions and wages of its workers, particularly in factories abroad. This contrast shows an ideological divide between the image Apple wants to show and how it actually treats its workers.

This is exactly the point that I am trying to make. Ehrenreich conducted this experiment to get firsthand experience on how to live a life solely on minimum-wage and discovered the truth: you cannot. This is clear proof of a bigger problem that we have. Obviously, we cannot expect that someone who works minimum wage can afford a New York penthouse or the latest Aston Martin, but we can absolutely expect that they can afford rent and a few rounds of groceries. Why do we constantly let ourselves be disappointed, our expectations never met?

I really wonder if our leaders have no idea what the true effects of their so-called "welfare reform" are. I think we should have all leaders and policy makers try out this experiment. I believe that after a month, they'll come out completely different people with new worldviews and altered takes on how they can "fix homelessness" or "solve poverty." They could probably be more realistic and willing to actually root out the problem.

My favorite part of this piece has to be the end, where Ehrenreich talks about the diversity of everyone who works these types of jobs, and how she hopes that one day they will know what they are worth. I think 2 things about this: the first being that it's beautiful, and the second that it is heartbreaking. I think it's beautiful that she got to meet such a variety of people, because I think her experience introduced her to one of the truths of humanity: living in the mundane. She learned to live with the mundane, and met all the different people who did that everyday. I think it was heartbreaking because she admits that these people are being treated for much less than they are worth. I hope we can fix this one day.

Humans crave predictability and consistency. That's why fast food places are so popular, and exactly the point that Leidner is trying to make. The reliability and price of McDonald's is why people go and eat at it. If someone wanted a well-constructed, veggie filled, top-tier beef burger, they wouldn't go to McDonald's. People go to McDonald's because they know it'll be the same every time, there are no surprises. Taking control of their food is just one way that people can find that consistency they want so much.

When I first read about Hamburger University, I thought it was silly. Graduating with a degree in Hamburgerology seems like it's really silly, but once I connected it back to the first few lines that said “The heart of McDonald’s success is its uniformity and predictability," it made a lot more sense! Managers and franchise owners need to have some standard that they can compare to and learn how to achieve that uniformity we all know and love.

Rationalization is a word I didn't know going into this, but after learning it, I'm seeing it in a lot of other places in my life. Obviously in all of the fast food places we eat at, but also in almost every other industry that exists in our lives. Standardization and routine has become, well, routine in our everyday lives.

It was interesting learning about McDonald's philosophies when it comes to both customers and workers. I'm sure they've made such a name for themselves because they've remained constant not only in their products, but their procedures and ideologies. It wasn't pleasant to hear the way they treat their employees a lot of the time, expecting them to adhere to strict corporate policies while only giving them the minimum they can offer. I am not excusing it by any means, but I assume they do this because the expectation they put on their workers leads to a more predictable and reliable experience. I haven't had McDonald's in nearly a year but this is making me crave a fish filet, lol.

I think the message of this piece is one of my favorites so far. Wishard details how live in an age where things are constantly changing in front of our eyes, and we aren't even aware most of the time. I read a book last year called A History of the World in 6 Glasses, and it talked about globalization. Our constant intermingling of cultures and sharing ideas is making it so that we are all becoming similar to each other. We are breaking and transcending boundaries in favor of making connections with each other, and as such, we are sharing information and products that are carrying us into a new age. Technology is the biggest example of information and products that are constantly evolving, so I understand why Wishard says that it is at the forefront of our change.

Personally, I love knowing that I live on the edge between two ages. That in front of me, technology has evolved so rapidly and life is different than it was just a few decades ago. I'm honored to be a teenager and soon young adult during this time.

I know a lot of this piece is about how globalization and this transition of eras is negative and has a lot of disadvantages, but I think a lot of those are based off fear. This turn of the ages is something unlike anything we have ever experienced before, and just because it is unknown doesn't mean it is scary.

Today, I am the same way. My previous social class has definitely had an impact on my thoughts and choices today. I still overthink before I buy things, and I find it difficult to splurge on things. For example, I wanted to buy a new pair of shoes but I just bought one a few weeks ago. My sister and mom told me to go for it, but to me, spending another $120 was unjustified and didn't make sense to me.

We completely have the capabilities to do so now though! We are definitely upper middle class. My dad now makes 6 figures and I don't qualify for reduced lunch anymore, which is different because where my sister had to pay $120 for 4 AP exams in high school, I just paid $450. I never felt like my life was worse because of my social class, but just emptier than those around me. I think lacking is too harsh of a word, but I did feel like of silly amongst my peers knowing that I couldn't afford the newest, shiniest things everyone else did. I think that still affects me to this day, the way I hate buying things and constantly fear overspending money.

I think the distinction between upper class and middle class is getting larger and larger, and lower class and middle class seem to be merging together. It seems like nothing can touch the upper class and how much wealth they control, but everyone else is left to fend for themselves. This distinction between upper class and everything else keeps getting bigger because the rich have access to better financial resources and opportunities, like investments and tax breaks, which help them get even richer. Meanwhile, many people face challenges like expensive education, healthcare, and housing, which make it hard for them to save money and improve their financial situation. This wealth disparity affects a lot of things, like who has power in politics and how much people can move up the economic ladder. Rich people often have more influence over laws and policies, which can keep the system unfair. The inequality can also cause social problems and slow down economic growth because so many people can’t fully participate in the economy.

I honestly have never considered the stance that Gans explains in this piece, but after reading it, it makes more sense to me now. Gans suggests that poverty persists in society because it serves important functions. According to the functionalist perspective in sociology, social conditions exist because they benefit society in some way. Gans argues that the poor provide essential services to society, such as taking on low-wage, undesirable jobs that keep costs down for others and create jobs for those in higher positions, such as social workers and police officers. Additionally, poverty can help reinforce social norms by contrasting what society views as acceptable behavior with the negative outcomes of poverty.

Although I do see his point, that poverty is essential in some ways and helps us progress as a society, I do think there must be more we can do to help people who live below the poverty line. We must distribute our wealth better because right now, people are struggling a lot more than they have to be! Yes, someone must take these undesirable jobs, but someone shouldn't have to work 3 jobs just to live paycheck to paycheck and buy a few groceries. Just because poverty is necessary doesn't mean inhumanity is as well.

I felt so cool going with her and drinking coffee (even though I didn't need to be drinking coffee at that age anyway, LOL.) Then, after we moved here to Stockton, we would drive 5 miles a few times a week to the closest Starbucks and pick up drinks. They opened a Starbucks near my house, and the rest was history. We were blowing hundreds a month, and I now realize that was a sign of our class change. Coffee was a small representation of the fact that we had moved up in social order, we had the freedom to spend money like that and not think twice about it.

After the current situation in Palestine, we started boycotting Starbucks and other places. Suddenly we had a pretty large cash flow which made us realize how much money we were really spending there every month.

But I do see the correlation between coffee and class as it is mentioned in this chapter. I saw it within my own life and personal experiences once we started consuming more and more coffee as we moved up in our social order. My friends would feel jealous when they saw I came to school with Starbucks, and it madame realize that just a few years ago, I felt the same way. I think small things that we don't really think matter contribute to our different social classes. For example, a woman who gets a manicure and pedicure every two weeks may not think much about it, but she is different than a girl who paints her nails with Dollar Tree polish. Something to think about!

But the reality is, it's not always that simple. Students from working-class backgrounds often face a lot of obstacles. It can be really discouraging to see how many hurdles there are when you're trying to improve your life. Many end up settling for less ambitious goals than they initially dreamed of. Even with hard work and talent, the path to success is often littered with challenges that can be overwhelming.

Something new I learned from this piece is that sociologists talk about a “deficit of cultural capital” to describe that situation. Cultural capital refers to the social assets (like education, intellect, style of speech, etc.) that help people succeed. For many from working-class families, there's a lack of this kind of capital, which makes it harder to move up. But despite these challenges, some people do manage to break through. This piece talks about sociologists who managed to do just that, and for me, that definitely was a new perspective.

The main idea of this piece is that early socialization within a class has long-lasting effects. If you grow up in a working-class family, you're likely to face "culture shock" when you move up into the middle class. This isn't just about money; it's about adjusting to a whole new social world with different norms, values, and expectations. And this shock can be even more intense for women, people of color, and ethnic minorities, because their experiences of class are often intertwined with gender and race.

What I personally took away from this is that the journey of "moving up" is not just about financial success; it's about navigating and adapting to a new cultural landscape, and this can be difficult for those that don't have the right resources.

For me, it helped to visualize this piece as I read it. For example, imagine being born into a wealthy family. It’s not just about having a big house or going on fancy vacations; it’s about how your entire view of the world is shaped. The rich have access to exclusive clubs and schools, where they learn to see themselves as separate from the rest of us. They’re taught a whole set of values and beliefs that reinforce their status and keep them within their own bubble. This is a big part of why social inequality is so entrenched—those at the top are raised to stay there.

Weber's theory says social status is really all about who controls the money. Historically, in the U.S., this has meant the white, Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPs) were at the top. They’ve had a huge influence on the country’s culture and power structures. But things are starting to shift, and the upper class is becoming more diverse. We’re seeing a transformation, or a “de-WASPing,” of the elite.

However, this change isn’t super obvious to most people. The old-school institutions and cultural norms are still holding on, making the shift slower and more subtle than some might like. But as the upper class becomes more diverse, there could be some really positive changes. A wider range of perspectives might shake up the power structures and lead to more inclusive decision-making. On the flip side, the institutions that keep the rich at the top might just adapt to include new faces while keeping the same old dynamics in place.

I am actually very curious to see how the upper class will change as time goes on. And, this is kind of embarrassing to admit but I've imagined what it would like to be a WASP. having old money and going to balls and never saying no to anything must be such a fun life, LOL.

This piece made me realize that music reflects society's complexities, struggles, and triumphs. It's a medium where art meets activism, where personal expression becomes a collective movement. When I listen to music now, I want to think about the stories behind it and the cultural forces it represents. Music is more than just a soundtrack to my life; it’s a mirror reflecting the world I live in and who I am.

Especially with how songs blow up on TikTok, you can tell that the music industry tries to tell us what's popular by pushing certain artists and styles. But the real trends, the ones that feel authentic and groundbreaking, come from the people! These are the people who are living real lives, dealing with real struggles, and using music as a way to express themselves.

I do think that cultural appropriation and racism in music is a very important issue, because it's a form of stealing artwork. I think we are getting better at calling out cultural appropriation nowadays, but because it can easily be justified in music as "an inspiration," we still have work to do. People of color also have harder times and more struggles on the road to success. I think to the address cultural appropriation and racism in music, it’s crucial to recognize and respect the origins of musical styles and the people behind them.

In the U.S., race and ethnicity are huge factors that affect life chances. They can open doors or slam them shut, and they play a big role in our personal identity. But here’s the thing: We’re not born with an innate understanding of race or ethnicity. We learn these concepts from the world around us, which can sometimes be a real shock. (I definitely realized this during the Race Survey).

I really like how Page said that instead of thinking of America as a melting pot where everything mixes into one bland stew, a better metaphor might be a “mulligan stew.” I think that's a good comparison, every person adds something new and unique to this country, and we all have a place.

I think its important that he mentioned how African Americans, like any other group, are incredibly varied. Some might become very focused on their racial identity, while others blend their black identity with other aspects of their lives in a more multicultural way. Both approaches can provide a sense of belonging and help individuals navigate the challenges of racism. Having a solid identity helps people stand strong and interact with others outside their immediate community.

I personally believe the deeper issue here is identity—figuring out who we are and where we fit in the grand scheme of things. In America, our identities are often shaped by a mix of history and personal choices, which can be a confusing and ongoing process. I like the Ralph Ellison quote used here, “When I discover who I am, I’ll be free,” pointing out that understanding ourselves is key to finding freedom and making our way in the world.

The article explores how racism, though less visible and overt than in the past, continues to influence social dynamics and individual lives, in a completely different viewpoint than I have ever considered. It's fascinating, yet unsettling, to consider how racist ideologies find new ways to manifest, often under the guise of seemingly benign social movements. I think Ezekiel does a good job at highlighting how these ideologies offer a misguided sense of belonging and purpose, particularly for those who feel disenfranchised or alienated in modern society.

One thing that this passage made me see is that is that racism isn't a one-sided issue. Racial hatred, while often associated with white supremacist groups, can be found across all racial and ethnic groups. This fact challenges us to look beyond simple narratives and understand the complex ways in which race and prejudice intersect in society. Racism isn't merely a relic of the past; it adapts and evolves, often becoming worse and harder to recognize.

I wouldn't have ever known what goes on in a racist person's head if I didn't read this. The fact that their ideologies and thought processes are so skewed is evident in their actions and statements, but this seemed like a completely new perspective.

1. For this question, all of the people I asked said they were Asian. When I asked them further, they said they were South Asian. For context, everyone in my family is from Bangladesh, and my best friend is from India. I say my race is South Asian American.

2. My mom and my sister said "they just know," they said the place that they were born is in South Asia which makes them South Asian. My dad said that it wasn't just where you were born, you needed heritage from a certain place to, so because his entire family is of Bangladeshi descent, that makes him a Bangladeshi, and makes his race Asian. My best friend first said it was a silly question and then answered that she knows what race she is because she grew up with the knowledge that she was Indian, which is South Asian. My brother in law kind of just shrugged and said "I don't know, it's kind of one of those things you just know." I make my decision because of my heritage and my relatives, they are all Bangladeshi, but I am also born and raised in America. I regularly go to Bangladesh, am fluent in Bengali, and have the features of a Bangladeshi, so I know I can't just call myself an American. But it also doesn't feel right just calling my self Asian, when I haven't lived in Asia.

3. My mom and my dad both said that that was something they really only thought about after immigrating to the United States. They had learned about different countries and continents in school, but not a lot of information about races. When and after immigrating to the US, they learned what the different races are and what it means to be one race or the other. My best friend gave a similar answer since she also immigrated from India, but said she learned about what different races were in school. When she was younger, she knew that she was Indian, but not really what that meant in a bigger picture. My sister said she learned what race she was in school when learning about different races, and that some early messages she received in school were that all races were good and we should all be kinder to each other. My brother in law said he also learned in school that all races were good, but as he got older, heard about different stereotypes and flaws that were attributed to each race. I learned what race I am by just asking the people around me.

4. My parents are a little outdated so they just said "they could tell by looking at someone's face and skin color" and didn't really elaborate much past that. My sister added more, saying that many races have defining facial qualities that when you see them on somebody, you can tell what race they are, in conjunction to their skin color. My brother in law mentioned the same thing that you did in your lecture, that skin color can be changed by a tan or something similar, so it isn't always an indicator of race. Usually the best way to find out was just by asking. I forgot to ask my best friend this one.

5. Everybody said similar things to the response before. To summarize, if those people are strangers then they could just perceive someone's facial features and skin color and associate it with the race of people that would typically look similar to that person or share characteristics with them.
   What is race? Race is a way that people are grouped together based on physical traits like skin color, hair texture, and facial features. Even though people often think of race as something biological, it's actually more about how societies have decided to categorize people.

When we say race is socially constructed, it means that race isn't really about biological differences but something societies have created. Over time, people have used race to group others based on physical traits like skin color and hair. These groups have changed depending on what's happening in the world. Different cultures have different ideas about race, and what one society thinks about race can be totally different in another.

I'd like to connect this to other things we have learned in this course: especially about CLASS. For starters, toys reflect and reinforce consumer culture. In wealthy countries, toys are often marketed as symbols of social status. Kids get bombarded with ads telling them they need the latest and greatest to be cool. This creates a pressure-cooker of consumerism where having the "right" toys is a big deal. It’s not just about what kids like; it’s about fitting in or standing out. For some kids, having the newest toy can be a way to gain social status, while not having it might make them feel left out. The choice of toys isn’t equally available to all kids. As I mentioned before, class and economic status play a huge role. In some families, toys are a luxury, so the focus is on essentials rather than trends. This disparity shows how social stratification influences what kids play with and how they experience socialization. Even though kids are active in choosing and interpreting their toys, the broader economic context still shapes these choices.

I know this chapter is about sex and gender, but because there are so many other padlets for this one I wanted to use this post to share something interesting I knew that connects back to what we learned before. It's pretty neat that something like toys can connect to both gender and social class.

In middle school, peer groups are incredibly influential. From my own experience, this is the age where the pressure to conform and be attractive becomes intense. Eder’s observations show that girls often become obsessed with their looks, driven by the messages they receive from peers and the media. Even girls who excel in areas like sports or academics still face constant reminders that their value is tied to how they look. That's how I felt sometimes, even though I was considered smart I sometimes did not feel cute just because no one had a crush on me.

This isn’t just a minor issue; it’s a significant factor in how they develop their identities and how they’re treated in the adult world. I think it's around this time that girls start getting objectified. They start getting male attention as boys go through puberty and discover girls, and they also get more access to the media ,,which already ruins girl's perceptions of themselves. When girls internalize this objectification, they struggle with seeing themselves as whole individuals with their own thoughts, feelings, and potential. Instead, they might see themselves as mere objects, which can severely limit their sense of self-worth and potential. This kind of self-perception can prevent them from exploring their interests and achieving their full potential.

I do hope we find some way to break this cycle one day because I really don't know where to start in this case. I think the most important thing we must do however is to highlight a more inclusive view of what it means to be valuable and successful. We have to encourage girls and remind them that they are their character and talents instead of their looks.

For example, look at any playground, and you can see the early stages of gender socialization in action. Boys might be encouraged to play rough-and-tumble games that promote competition and strength, while girls might be steered towards activities that emphasize cooperation and caregiving. That's how it was for me when I was in elementary school once in a while. These early experiences are crucial in forming the foundation for how boys and girls perceive themselves and their roles in society.

I've seen that as they grow older, these gendered expectations are reinforced through media, education, and even professional environments. Men are often expected to pursue leadership roles and assert their authority, while women may find themselves pushed towards roles that require empathy and communication. Even in marriage, where partnerships are ideally equal, traditional gender roles can persist, with men taking on the role of the provider and women often expected to manage the household and caregiving responsibilities. I know that marriages here are much different than the ones I've seen in Bangladesh because our gender roles are evolving at a much different rate.

But it’s not just innocent fun. These early experiences in play contribute to the rigid gender roles I now see as I'm getting older. From a young age, boys are taught to value independence and toughness, while girls are encouraged to prioritize emotions and relationships. These lessons carry over into teenage relationships, where men and women often bring different expectations and skills to the table.

I see a lot of the fights between my friends' relationships where the boy gets mad that he girl is too emotional, and the girl gets mad because her boyfriend doesn't communicate well or know how to explain how he's feeling. A lot of how we interact when we are younger carries on when we grow up because those initial interactions create the foundations of who we are. It's very interesting to see how everyone is just a bigger version of their kid selves.

I really found the idea that men and women have different communication styles that affect how they relate to each other. fascinating. I thought it was interesting because although this might sound like a stereotype to some, there’s no denying that there’s often truth in it. Men might lean towards more direct and assertive language, while women might focus on building connections and emphasizing empathy. This doesn’t mean that every individual follows these patterns, but they are prevalent enough to cause frequent miscommunication.

For example, let's talk about a couple having an argument. The girl might want to talk about her feelings and get emotional support, while the guy is trying to find a quick fix to the problem. Both sides are valid, but if they’re only speaking their own "language," things can get heated fast. Learning to see these differences is key to getting along and finding solutions.

This piece made me realize that there's no "right" way to communicate. It’s all about getting your message across in a way that the other person can understand. It's kind of like trying to chat with someone who speaks a different language. You'd have to find some common ground or learn a few words in their language to make it work. Communication is very interesting to me!

I wanna talk a bit about my own experience with this as a teenager who's always on social media.

On social media, we call this kind of attractive judgment "cancel culture," and it's pretty prevalent. For example, TikTok is a place where pretty privilege is super obvious. Attractive creators gain followers quickly and bounce back from scandals with ease. When there's a case of cancel culture that might ruin the reputation of an average-looking person that's just a temporary blip for those with pretty privilege. Their looks act like a shield, granting them second chances and continued fan support. Brands and advertisers also tend to favor attractive influencers, further emphasizing that appearance often outweighs talent or hard work.

This bias isn’t limited to social media. In the workplace, studies show that attractive individuals are more likely to be hired, promoted, and earn higher salaries than their less attractive peers. This furthers systemic inequalities and leaves those who don't fit conventional beauty standards at a disadvantage.

I think the system we have right no w is really heartbreaking. I believe we need to look beyond appearances and value people for their character rather than just their looks. In doing so, I hope we might finally move toward a society where people are judged for more important things than their facial symmetry.

Take women in the military, for example. Not too long ago, this was a man’s game. But now, women are stepping into roles that were once off-limits, and it’s very different!

For example, take being a guy in the military who’s always been told that toughness equals masculinity. Suddenly, there are women beside you, doing the same job, and it can mess with your head. Some guys can’t handle it—they feel like their masculinity is under attack. For me, I imagine they think "Wait, if women can do this too, what does that say about my manliness?” For some men, it’s a bitter pill to swallow, leading to resentment and resistance.

One thing that sucks about that is that you would think we’d be past the whole “boys vs. girls” playground mentality, but nope, it’s alive and kicking in some corners of the military. Men who are used to being the big dogs might feel threatened when women are every bit. This resistance isn’t always blatant; sometimes, it’s more about subtle digs or creating an atmosphere that’s less than welcoming. It’s the adult version of playground politics.

The changes happening in the military are a representative of the larger shifts in society. They force us to look at how we define gender roles and question if those definitions still make sense. As women continue to break barriers, it pushes all of us to rethink our assumptions and biases.

I personally think that the goal should be to move toward a more inclusive environment where everyone’s strengths are recognized, regardless of gender. It's not just about women fitting into traditionally male roles but about creating a space where everyone can thrive without having to deal with outdated stereotypes. We have to understand these complexities to help us move towards a more inclusive world, one where we appreciate the diversity of strengths each person brings to the table! :)

The toys in both stores were organized pretty obviously by boys and girls sections. The selection in Target was more organized than in Walmart, but both of them had very obviously marked toy sections. Both of them had toys organized seemingly by gender: neither blatantly said "BOYS" or "GIRLS," but at both stores all of the action figures, NERF guns, and basketballs were on one aisle, and the Barbies, kitchen sets, and dollhouses were on the other.

Usually, the toys marketed for boys had boys on the labels/ boxes, and the same for girls. I also noticed that the toys labeled for boys had more blue and green packaging, and the toys for girls had pink and red packaging.

There were definitely toys that were gender neutral there, the packaging would have both boys and girls or wouldn't have any kids at all. The toys themselves didn't seem like they fit into any stereotypes for either boys or girls, and that all kids could play with them together. Stuff like kinetic sand or fidget spinners were toys that didn't seem gendered at all.

I do think if I went to an actual fully-fledged toy store I would make some of the same observations I just made!

For my observations, please note I am not completely sure because I don't know everyone's races and ethnicities so please spare me! I saw about 13 people who were African American, 6/7 that were North/East Asian, 4 people that seemed South Asian, around 8 people that looked Mexican or of Hispanic descent, and some people that I couldn't tell or that seemed mixed or ambiguous. The rest of the people were white or European. I saw 8 men and about 40 women, although I do think there were some people who didn't identify as either women or men. As you mentioned in one of your previous lectures, they identified as non-binary or gender fluid is what I saw from one person's account. Even though I saw a lot of diversity in terms of race and a bit of diversity in terms of gender, it seemed like a different case for body. I know it was a makeup company, so mostly everything was focused on the face, but the models used ranged from skinny to mid-sized. I didn't see any models who were visibly overweight, but some did carry some facial fat while others seemed thin in comparison.

Based on my analysis, I can say that the definition of beauty is definitely changing and evolving, and I love that! A major reason why I chose a makeup company is because I think makeup is heavily associated with beauty and being beautiful, so I wanted to see how this particular company explored that. The founder of the company is a woman of color, so I can tell that she wanted to promote diversity with her line. I'm glad that beauty standards are evolving with time, Eurocentric features and pale skin are not the only things considered beautiful. I think it's wonderful that we are moving to accept and love beauty in all of its forms.

I think a major thing about white weddings is the fact that for so long, in many cultures, a woman's job was to get married and reproduce. This was considered the most important and meaningful day of a woman's life because it meant she fulfilled her purpose (as outdated as that sounds.) Now, even though that is completely different, the wedding day is still used as a day where a woman is celebrated and considered the most important person. That still carried over!

Importantly, let's talk about marriages and families. From the past, these now look very different. Traditional family structures, typically consisting of a nuclear family (two parents and their children), were once seen as the societal norm. The ideal was a stable household with clearly defined gender roles: fathers as breadwinners and mothers as homemakers. This was supported by cultural norms that reinforced these roles.

Today, family structures are much more diverse. Single-parent families, blended families (where one or both partners have children from previous relationships), and same-sex couples are all recognized and increasingly common. Personally, I think this change reflects broader societal shifts towards us accepting different forms of family life and personal choices.

Sure, today’s statistics about divorce rates and family issues can seem pretty grim, but let’s not kid ourselves into thinking that families in the past were some kind of utopia. Back in the day, marriages weren’t necessarily the picture of harmony we imagine. For starters, family roles were pretty rigid and often unfair. Women were expected to be homemakers and caretakers with little say in the big decisions. Men were the breadwinners, and while that might sound stable, it often came with its own set of pressures and problems.

Kids weren’t always the center of attention, either. They were expected to work and contribute to the family’s livelihood from a young age. And let’s not forget that domestic abuse and marital discord didn’t magically disappear back then; they just weren’t as openly discussed or recognized. In fact, societal norms often kept issues like spousal abuse hidden behind closed doors.

What’s really happening now is that society is evolving and adjusting to new norms and values. People are waiting longer to marry and are living together before making lifelong commitments, and while that might seem like a breakdown of traditional values, it’s actually just a shift in how we approach relationships and family life. Yes, there are still some kinks to work out for sure. But, this shift is partly about greater individual freedom and understanding, and partly about adapting to a world that’s rapidly changing. I'm here for it!

I do fantasize about my wedding, and I just envision it as many things! but mostly, I fantasize about the feeling and how I imagine it'll go. I think about walking down the aisle with my dad, and seeing my future husband at the end of it. As of right now my fantasy entails being in a scenic place, preferably a lot of nature around me. I want to have my family with me the entire time: I want my family to walk me down the aisle and for them to sit beside me as I get married to the man of my dreams (or a man I just met a few weeks ago, sometimes an arranged marriage sounds like a lot less work.)

I do think that as a Muslim, my fantasy of my future wedding does differ a bit from a traditional white wedding. Even before the wedding, I won't have a traditional proposal where I'm surprised or I can hug my fiancé before marriage. We won't be living together before and so there will be a lot of things I don't have knowledge about. The wedding ceremony will be between my dad and my husband, which is definitely different but not something I have any contention with. Honestly, I wouldn't want a white wedding anyway. I would much rather have one within my religion because I think our wedding traditions are wholesome and beautiful!

I have always dreamed about getting married from a young age, so I'm excited to see what it'll actually be like.

And the fact that they still made norms during this time because they knew that they were still human. They knew what they were doing was crucial to survive and that at the end of the day they were still civilized people. I did not expect that this story would be the piece that finally made me realize that society was truly a social construct, but the freaking 22 reasons finally got me! Through their circumstances, people made a new normal society, or at least whatever could be considered normal for them. They had to, or else they would go crazy. I just cannot even imagine how traumatic this must have been. I'm quite literally at a loss for words.

Zimbardo’s experiment showed that even regular people could turn aggressive when put in a certain setting. In his fake prison, people playing guards got really harsh really fast, and those pretending to be prisoners became stressed and submissive. This experiment highlighted how much the prison environment and power dynamics shape behavior, regardless of who you are.

I remember hearing about this experiment before, but I didn't really know that much about it. Reading it in this detail makes me think HOLY SH-- what an insane to make people go through. But also, what an insane thing to happen!! In less than a week, all civilization was forgotten. The problem definitely lies with how prisons are structured here, so here are some ideas I have on how I would change them.

First off, let’s talk about living conditions. Overcrowding and crappy facilities just ramp up tension and stress among inmates. Making sure that prisons are clean, not packed to the gills, and providing decent food can make a huge difference. If people are less stressed, they’re less likely to lash out. We also need to shift from punishment to rehabilitation. This means offering education, job training, and mental health support. If inmates can develop skills and work through their issues, they’re less likely to resort to violence and more likely to become productive members of society once they’re out. Finally, we need to tackle the bigger systemic issues, like racial and economic disparities in sentencing. Comprehensive reform is necessary to ensure fairness and justice across the board. We have to change the system.

One of the core issues here is the assumption that we can clearly tell the difference between sanity and insanity. If we can't, then institutionalizing people based on psychiatric evaluations might be fundamentally flawed. This concern isn't just theoretical—David Rosenhan's famous experiment tested this very idea by sending "sane" people to psychiatric hospitals, where they were often diagnosed as insane. This experiment raised a lot of eyebrows and got people questioning how reliable psychiatric diagnoses really are.

The implications of misdiagnosing someone as insane are pretty severe. Once someone is labeled as mentally ill, it can be incredibly difficult to shake that label. Unlike a mistaken cancer diagnosis, which would be cause for relief, a psychiatric misdiagnosis tends to stick with a person. This label can strip them of basic rights and privileges, like voting, driving, or managing their own finances. The stigma attached to mental illness is powerful and often lifelong, affecting every aspect of a person's life.

There's also the flip side: some people might pretend to be insane to avoid punishment for crimes, while others might find themselves wrongly institutionalized when they'd rather face a trial. This brings up the issue of how psychiatric institutions are sometimes seen as places where people can hide from criminal consequences, yet for others, they're places of indefinite confinement.

I think diagnoses for mental illnesses are not a clear cut science: the conversation about how to improve this system is ongoing, and it’s clear that there’s a lot of room for change. By questioning the assumptions and practices in place, I hope we can move towards a more fair and just approach to both legal and psychiatric evaluation and treatment.

The issue of police violence is one that's been in the spotlight for a while now, and it's clear that it's not just about a few "bad apples" in the force. From what I've seen and read, like the personal stories and research from sociologists like Hunt, it's pretty obvious that police violence is part of a larger problem with the way the whole system is set up.

It's tempting to think that some police officers are just naturally more aggressive or violent, but Hunt points out that it's more about the culture and environment they're in. The job comes with a set of norms and expectations that often encourage officers to act tough or even resort to violence. This isn't just about the official rules, which might promote de-escalation and peaceful resolutions; it's about the unspoken rules that exist within the force. These informal expectations can be powerful, pushing officers to show aggression to gain respect or fit in with their peers.

If I were a social reformer looking to tackle police violence, I'd start by shaking up this culture. The recruitment and training process is a good place to begin. Instead of just looking for people who seem like they'd be good at enforcing the law, we should be looking for people who are great communicators, empathetic, and who genuinely want to help their communities. Training should focus heavily on these aspects, emphasizing conflict resolution and understanding over force and aggression.

Building trust between the police and the communities they serve is also a huge part of the solution. It’s about more than just enforcing the law; it’s about being a part of the community and understanding the people they’re supposed to protect. Initiatives that promote dialogue and cooperation between police and residents can go a long way in reducing tensions and preventing violence.

Yes, police officers are always going to have to use some force, but because force is relative, it is hard to regulate it. That is why it should only be a last resort, and officers should focus on other measures first.

DISCLAIMER - I opened this one a little late, so I didn't have a week's worth of time to notice norms being violated and just wrote about the first one I noticed since we could just write about one.

I went out to Target and lunch with 3 of my best friends. We were all sitting at a table in Chipotle, and one of my friends started commenting on how fat she looked/felt as she was about to eat her bowl. For context, she is about 5 foot and incredibly thin, while me and one of my other best friends are actually overweight. Me and her do sometimes make jokes about being fat, but when the other girl does it we get a bit uncomfortable because we know she does it on purpose; she also comments on being skinny and being underweight so we feel like she is very contradictory. Anyway, when she made that comment again during lunch I felt like it was a weird thing to say, cause no one was talking about their bodies or anything like that and it just didn't seem like the time or place. I felt like the norm being violated was that she was commenting on her very obviously thin body as overweight, which felt out of place. I think I knew these norms were there because I personally felt kind of insecure when she said that, and I'm sure my other friend did as well. I feel like it's kind of common knowledge that when you are with someone who is bigger than you, you don't comment on how "fat" you think you are, cause then that makes you think "oh if she thinks she's fat what does she think about me??"

I do think these norms are specific to her social status (and mine as well). I think it's common that teenage girls around our age make comments like that and think like that. I do think there are some situations where this would seem rational. As I said before, I think this was weird because of the people she was with and the context within which she said it. Maybe if she was with a different group of people or having a conversation about body dysmorphia/body issues that would be a completely different idea. This is significant because it highlights that what we think might be weird, actually isn't weird when it's isolated, it just depends on the context within which that act took place. Again, I don't think she said anything bad particularly so I can see myself in a position where I would have said the same thing, but I would want to change the context in which I said something like that so that it wouldn't be considered weird.

I don't want to label her as weird, but the situation definitely rubbed me the wrong way, so I did feel weirded out. The interaction made me feel like I should distance myself a little bit from her, I don't think what she said is that bad on its own but because it isn't the first time, I definitely want to do something about it.

I do think this piece parallels an idea I hold myself. I didn't go to preschool, so kindergarten was my transitional period. There, I learned how to interact with peers, stick to a routine, and listen to authority. These are all skills that transferred on every year of school and that are still important to this day. Being a 5 year old who just plays on the playground and throws tantrums thrown into a completely new environment would be insane and completely unfeasible if we didn't have a transitional period like kindergarten.

The reason that I didn't go to preschool is because every day, during nap time, I would just cry for my mom and after 3 days my mom just took me out. I went into kindergarten the next year without any previous school experience like my friends, but I think that contributed to why I think kindergarten is actually a very good transitional state. I had a nice environment and learned "school imposed discipline" as it states in this chapter.

Like it states, that "school-imposed discipline" did help me to become a self-define good student, all my friends know me to be the nerd and try hard student. But I wouldn't have these skills if I didn't have the foundation that we learn in school when we go in person, which is why I think an online kindergarten or transitional period is not very beneficial. My brother's kindergarten was during Covid, and I really don't think he came out of it with much. Other than basic shapes, colors, letters, and numbers, kindergarten doesn't offer much else scholastically. It teaches social skills, how to interact with others, how to speak and work together, even how to use the bathroom on your own. I think when we strip that away and make everyone go online, they end up lacking a lot of skills. When it was time for kids to go back in first grade, my brother couldn't handle the overstimulation and sudden structure in the classroom and had to do another year online. Now hes much better, but I do think that is a testament to how kindergarten is an "academic bootcamp."