Equal Status Contact is the Solution

I believe today's chapter can make great use of Allport's Contact Hypothesis, which states that equal status contact can help to relieve prejudice thoughts, acts, and stereotypes. The chapter places an emphasis of the fact that we as humans have a natural inclination to categorize and subdivide individuals and things into specific categories, and then attach meanings to these categories. However these meanings, which are socially constructed, become worked into a frame of thought that is adamant and rigid and inherent into the thinking process. Yet, like Allport I agree that equal status contact, coupled with a common goal can help to destruct these sexist, classist, and racist thoughts and beliefs. I can't recall the sociologist at the moment, but he established two competing boys camps experimentally, in which two groups of boys resided at either of the two camps, he then gave the camps bonding experiences, of which they used to develop in group cohesion. When told that they would be competing against one another, their in group cohesion was significantly strong, and they favored their group to the other, distinguishing the differences between their group through positive descriptors, and the out-group through negative descriptors. It is through the membership of simply being in one group or another that developed a negative perception of the two groups, which resembled racist talk among in-groups when referring to racial out-groups. However, when time came for them to have to ban together in order to get a broken-down bus back onto the road, it was through the collective efforts of the two groups that changed their perceptions of one another. Through joining their strengths they were able to debunk any negative beliefs of one another, because they had developed equal status contact. Therefore, the two groups now believed the other to be both competent and warm, allowing the groups to come together establishing mutual friendships between the two groups. This chapter sparked my thought on this subject because I believe that the chapter in some way was searching for a solution to the problems of stratification and Allport's theory got my wheels turning as a number of possible solutions. 

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/27/justices-offer-split-views-on-voting-rights-act-enforcement/?hpt=hp_t2

Oh dear...

"Stratification does not just happen."

The title I used for this post are Massey's opening words for chapter seven (page 242). And his words ring true... stratification just doesn't happen. In the United States stratification is part of our history, it always has been and it probably always will be. I don't think there will ever be a "cure" to stratification. I do feel as though there can be great improvements to our society to decrease the amount of stratification there is in today's world. What these changes need to be I'm not sure, and I don't really think anyone knows.

With this overall book I have learned a lot but I have also learned that I don't really care for Massey's writing style. I like that he breaks up the reading into parts but to me it seems like he repeats a lot. Though the information that he was giving us was interesting and valid I feel like he has over researched/analyzed some areas of stratification and it is time for him to look into other areas! But he does know his stuff! That is for sure!

77 Cents for very Dollar!!!!

I wanted to talk briefly again about gender inequality and work. Sorry for such a late post, but due to a loss of power today and having to make an emergency run to Columbia I couldn't post until now. I want to address the average pay of women in the workforce compared to that of men in similar lines of work. The thought of 77 cents per every dollar a man makes is such a drastic difference in the rate of pay that it has now become a very problematic situation. I personally disagree with this basis. The explanation behind paying women less for similar work is embedded in the belief that a woman must have a man somewhere to provide for her and it disregards those individual women who are the sole and or only provider for their households. It is no shock that many households today are primarily ran by women who must care for an entire family on their own. Yet, we love to assume that women can sufficiently provide as much as any man or dual family owners on less than adequate pay. I am most confused as to why this hasn't been ratified to this very day, the thought of sexism affecting the outcome of women's lives financially is beyond ridiculous and that's a fact.

Some more interesting data on gender inequality in the workplace.

http://www.upworthy.com/this-is-why-women-have-the-right-to-complain-about-their-paychecks?c=cd1

Well, I'm glad we've wrapped that up.  

I will just say I, for one, am happy to be finished with Massey, and I'm glad that last chapter was quite the easy review read.

Since this can be about anything I thought I might reflect on the conversations we've been having in class in the context of Categorically Unequal as a review for myself over what we've discussed.

I must say that a lot of the discussions we've had in class have opened my eyes to some new and rather unfortunate facts which have helped me to paint the picture of inequality in the United States.

I feel like now I can be a soldier against inequality on the streets--not really, but still I feel much better equipped to grapple with the issue of inequality.

A note on Massey's final chapter; I may have read him wrong but I thought it was interesting how he suddenly shifted to a very strong stance on education as the primary form of stratification on the country.  I am interested as to why he did that?  Was it a sub-text all along and he's just tying the laces up now, or did I miss it entirely though the text.  It seemed to me that all along he was more interested in discussing schemas and boundary work instead of education--just wondering why the change?

Also, as a quick reply to Heather's post:

I completely agree with you about the whole DQ hiring deal.  I see the same thing at my workplace!

This is worth watching.  It's about economic inequality.

http://billmoyers.com/segment/richard-wolff-on-fighting-for-economic-justice-and-fair-wages/

You Said Anything...

This is my post for Tuesday... I will not be in class due to the fact that I lost a family member this week and I need to be home. You said that this post could be about anything... I think!

I want to talk about my home town and how I think that some work places discriminate against men. In my hometown, Montgomery City, we have a DQ. At this DQ there is no men/boys that work there. I know plenty of guys who were in need of jobs and said what the heck I might as well apply at DQ. Not a single one of them got a call back or a job at DQ. I know for a fact that some of them are better works then the girls/women that work at DQ now. When talking to the girls that work there they say that there boss hates guys and said she would never high one! I don't see how this is right at all.

Another work place that I have never seen hire men until about two years ago is the elementary school in my home town. I have lived my whole life in Montgomery City and I never had a male teacher until I was in middle school. I don't really know why this was the case but now there is a male gym teacher and a male fifth grade teacher at the elementary school.

I think that it is great that there is male teachers on staff because if a boy/young man is having a hard time they may feel that they can talk more openly with another male then a female.

Just something I thought about while reading chapter six.

Getting closer...

I think that, of the three types of stratification this book focuses on, gender is the least cumbersome. While it is a problem, I feel that it is a shrinking problem, while the race and class forms of stratification, if they are not growing, they are at least stagnant. I feel like the barriers between men and women aren't as strong as the ones between races, and especially between classes.

More stuff

I hope you all are reading each other's posts!  There is a lot to learn from each other. I want to share with you all a couple links you might find interesting.  But first, I think you should pay attention to Geofrey's post about the Lilly LedBetter Act.  I appreciate him bringing this up.  The Act was a modification to the Equal rights Act and makes it easier for women to file law suits against companies that discriminate against them.

Here is a link to a blog with an interesting chart about wage differences.  The gender wage gap is a complicated problem.  As far as we can tell, much of the gap is explained by the difference careers men and women choose.  We will talk more about this on Tuesday.  But if you ever get really interested in this subject, one of the leading experts on the wage gap is Joan Hermsen, and she is a faculty member at U. of Missouri-Columbia. http://familyinequality.wordpress.com/2013/02/15/gender-wage-gap-2012-edition/ Also, the above blog post has a link to the BLS data release which has a ton of information to explore.

Here is a link to the most current data on how we spend our time (also think about Shamika's post).  http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.t01.htm

Sweden looks inviting, but they have issues with gender equality.  Sweden has one of the highest level of reported rape out of other countries in Europe. Obviously, this is a huge problem.

However, you all might find this short article interesting.  Like Sweden, Norway is more progressive on issues of gender than the United States.  This article talks about a few of the policies that Norway has that allow for more women to participate in the economy.  It should be noted that a majority of the women who work in Norway, work part time. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/29/world/europe/29iht-letter29.html?pagewanted=all

Chapter 6

Geofrey C Bilabaye

In this chapter i would prefer if we discuss more about figures 6.6, 6.7 and 6.8. I think these three figures present very interesting information that will be great if we discuss them in class.

But also, i would like to point the example given in the book about the income inequality in Sweden compared to the United States.

The truth is, even though United States is the richest country in the world, it is still growing. But also this does not mean we shouldn't feel bad for discriminating women in wages, i think that is wrong. 

As a country, United states has had its weaknesses in how the government is being run, and how bad the political system has always affected the lives of people, but eventually things will always get in straight line.

I mentioned in previous posts that Brown vs Board of Education was signed in 1954, it wasn't until 11 years later when the first voting rights for African Americans was signed in 1965.

Recently President Obama has just signed into law the Lilly LedBetter act, which is the law that will allow women to receive the same payment for the same job that men do. 

In my opinion there isn't a better evidence for the constantly growing United States than this. When this law is finally in practice, women will be able to receive the same payment as men for the same job the do.

No Thank You. I Don't Need the Overtime!

           I believe in class we were approaching an interesting topic known as the second shift. The second shift refers to the work, usually performed by women, concentrated in the home after leaving a job of pay outside of the home. I find it interesting that regardless of this progressive day in age that women are still the individuals mainly working the second shift. We have come so far as a society to including the importance of women in the workforce, realizing that a single income within the house is no longer able to sustain the family. However, we are no closer to understanding as a group of people that we cannot expect women to delegate themselves to performing an extra set of duties within the home, as well as outside of the home, alone. When will we learn that the home is a collective effort? Personally, I believe that our expectations of women to take on this second shift, lessens the importance of their work outside of the home, aiding in the beliefs of some individuals that the work women perform while on the clock is meaningless. We don't expect men to take on as many duties upon re-entering the home. Is it because his work is seen as far more important than his female companion in importance and necessity?
          Secondly, it continues to engender work that is meant for women and work meant for men. When we assign specific duties to one sex over another we ingrain those duties to the roles that are assumed under them. So, even if a woman is a C.E.O. or "head boss" at a company, having to fulfill the second shift when she returns home, signals that her career outside the home is less important in comparison to her "true atmosphere" of the house and her more important identity as a "caring wife". Yet again, a form of sexism is dispersed. However, benevolent sexism is at play, not only is the idea of women taking on the "second shift" a form of seeing them as the only means of perfection concerning the well oiled machine of a properly taken care of home, which speaks to the belief that women are nurturing, caring, loving, all the things that many men believe themselves not to be. Benevolent sexism, also gives the impression that women who are able to pull off such heavily involved duties as working outside and inside the home are "Superwomen", leaving women who are incapable of doing the same feeling "Super-lacking" and unable to measure up.  The major issue with this particular form of sexism, isn't that it is blatant like that of hostile sexism. The problem lies in it's ability of making women feel like total shit, but in a round-a-bout nice way, which is far worse than just putting it out there for the world to see!

Sprechen sie Equality?

One thing I do appreciate is the graph on page 236.  It appears that women, as of 2005, are at their peak employment percentage in almost all categories, which is a good sign of statistics to come.  However, the graph on page 231 brings us back to the ugly truth.  The separation between male and female pay is not getting any thinner; as a matter of fact, it appears to be getting wider.  What's more appaulling is that only 59% of this gap is attributed to education or job status.  The rest has no explanation whatsoever! As far as politics go, I do believe that we will see a woman president before too long.  Although, I can only hope that she is like Clinton, and not like Palin.  If it turns out to be the latter of the two, I'm gone.  I'll go put my 2 years of high school German to good use!

I'm Moving to Sweden!!

My favorite line in this chapter is on page 234. It states "In Sweden, of course, earning inequality is much lower than in the United States, and medical care is socialized so that a high level of gender segregation carries few implications for the earnings and well-being of women versus men."

The bottom of page 238 is also something that I find an interesting point that Massey brings up. I guess I never really thought about things in the concept. I still think some women try to keep a man around by being pregnant, which ticks me off when I hear about it sometimes.

There are so many different things that separate person to person, gender is just one of those things. It drives me crazy that after years of struggle women are still looked at as lower then men. I am an independent women and have been raised to survive and succeed without a man standing next to me.

I am currently looking into moving to Sweden. :) HAHA

The data with the ambivalent sexism inventory was intriguing. The scores that were reported interested me. The fact that generally people with high scores on the benevolent sexism scale had positive attitudes toward homemaker and people with high scores on the hostile sexism scale had negative attitudes of career women but not vice versa intrigued me. I would like to discuss this more. The chart on page 216, figure 6.1 was interesting and I would like to discuss it. I feel it is very accurate, and not only for males view on women, but other women's view on each other as well.

This chapter focused on women stratification. Although, this isn't the happiest of topics, I think there is positivity in it. If you look at how far women have come. Women have grown to become independent. Although all progress is slow, it is still progress. Therefore, I think it is fair to have hope that all groups can rise above stratification and achieve higher standards of norm for themselves.

Sorry, Rosie... We're all outta' rivets

I was happy to find that in most of this chapter Massey was very straight forward with what he was trying to say.

The only questions I find myself asking after reading the chapter have to do with the first study he discussed in "Ambivalent Sexism", I was confused by the way he presented the results--a whole lot of numbers and words that I don't really have the context to understand.  I am very interested in understanding the results, but unfortunately with the way he's presented them I can't.

Beyond comprehending the results I thought the study between hostile and benevolent sexism was quite interesting.

I really enjoyed the graph on the top of page 216.  I love this model for understanding the various groups that Massey wants to show stratification in.  This method of classifying women, while not necessarily good, was very interesting and I enjoyed seeing the results.

The section on "occupational ghettos" was fascinating.   If we could talk about horizontal and vertical segregation that would be nice.

As I read I was glad to see Massey define women into upper-class and lower-class segments.  I was worried he was going to try to lump all women together which I thought would be tough because, as he says, women at the top face less discrimination.

I am interested to understand the pay gap more as well, how does each of the things in the breakdown affect it, etc.

Thanks,
Joe

Weakness is Not in My Nature!

           Specifically for the chapter this week I wanted to write on hostile and benevolent sexism. As a reminder, benevolent sexism centers on limiting the constitution of women through belittling their capabilities portraying one's sex as a defining characteristic of one's vulnerable and weak nature. This defense is used as a means for placing one on a pedestal believing women to be too sensitive and enslaved to their nature to protect and care for themselves. However, hostile sexism maintains sexual domination and exploitation of women by men. Although, these two types of sexism in form may seem to diverge on the continuum, as extremes on either end, one thing is certain each takes for granted the supposed "weak"nature of women and reacts in a way indicative of this weakness. Benevolent sexism, takes a very protective means of sexism due to this weakness, while hostile sexism merely takes advantage. Yet, both forms of sexism makes a faulty judgment that women somehow are flawed in their inherent design and are predisposed to be in some way weak or fragile because of their nature. This becomes a problem when we take these misguided beliefs into work and partner relationships, in which women are viewed as incapable of making decisions concerning the well-being of companies, corporations, and other forms of business creating institutional sexism that becomes ingrained within certain institutions of employment. Women, due to these practices, become concentrated in "pink collar" employment opportunities, in which they are paid less than men who also are within these fields, which continues to fuel these negative stereotypes of women and their contributions in the workplace. Also, concerning partner violence, in which men are disproportionately the offender, hostile sexism takes place in and outside the home in which a concentration of male power leads to beliefs that women should be controlled and exploited because their sex is weaker in comparison to men. Undoubtedly, this yet again misguided belief has led to many cases of intimate partner violence, in which women continue to be the victims and men the perpetrators. However, it has also led to numerous accounts of rape and sexual abuse experienced by women overall. When it is all said and done these beliefs and practices, which are not believed by all men nor practiced by all men, have been instilled in us from the day we were able to learn and model behaviors of our society. Its perplexing, who would have thought that one's genitalia, or the mere presence of a "Y"or extra "X" chromosome could make such a major difference in privilege and treatment in our culture.     

Chapter 6: Additional points

 

Geofrey C Bilabaye

 

 

In my previous post i already discussed the very important things that i believe i needed to point out about the gender tension that exists in America since this is a problem that affects nearly all the aspects of our daily lives.

One more thing i would prefer to point out is that, for some reason's i don't understand why women should be paid less for the same job and same hours that men do.

I would like to mention specifically that, I have come across some really outstanding and really hard working women in my life.

I have a strong conviction that if our society would recognize the contribution of women in our society by giving them more opportunities to succeed just like men, our communities would be better off.

 







Chapter 6 Revisited

As I mentioned on my last post (my bad), chapter 6 was very interesting.  I still stand behind everything I said, and would like to add that I would like to see the newest figures for average income difference between men and women in not only America but in all the industrialized countries.  Also, I am curious as to whether or not President Obama has addressed this issue in recent speeches.  On a final and somewhat unrelated note, I heard somewhere (not sure where exactly) that one loophole that employers have and most likely will use again to counter a minimum wage increase is hour reduction.  I am curious to see if Obama addresses this issue, if it even becomes one (it probably will, us Americans are a caniving bunch!)

It's Been A Long Time Coming...

As most can guess chapter six sparked my interest. There is no hiding the fact that women have been discriminated against and looked at as lower then men. Women and men are classified in different groups in many different ways. One way men and women are divided, I would believe is the most common, is that men and women are separated by gender essentialism. Massey makes this point on page 217. When people think about women in general most of the time they think mother, caregiver, and carer of the home. There are also general ideas of what men are: the bread winner.

Over the years I do believe that the thoughts of where women stand in society have changed. We now have successful jobs, run businesses, and have power. Though women now have these standings in society we are still separated from men; one example is that we work the same job as men but get paid less! Women have worked for many years to get to where we are today, but there is still a long way to go.

I really like the chart on page 216 and would to get others opinions on the chart.

And here is a the link I was talking about regarding public opinion.

http://thesocietypages.org/graphicsociology/2010/10/07/americans-estimate-our-wealth-distribution-and-fail-horribly/

Maybe this blog was a good idea.  It's so easy to post information!


http://www.forbes.com/sites/leonardburman/2012/03/15/capital-gains-tax-rates-and-economic-growth-or-not/

No Opportunity. No way!

     I believe the other day the conversation which was sparked by the chapter aroused some tensions in the room and many of us were not able to express the entirety of our arguments. Personally, I believe the argument proposed centered on opportunity, who has it and who doesn't. Opportunity, like employment in the U.S., is hard to find. Similar to the concentration of wealth, which is located in the top one percent, opportunity is hoarded just as well with little availability for those in the working class. This particular knowledge is becoming a common understanding among many Americans because we bear witness to the everyday workings of homelessness, poverty, and the daily struggles of our society. However, as a collective people we somehow hold on dogmatically to the ever- promising ideals of the "American Dream" in hopes of one day obtaining our piece of the pie. However, this illusion only serves one purpose, which is to keep the underclass disabled and
un-knowledgeable of the facts, allowing the top one percent to hold control of the greatest power: wealth and opportunity. Being ignorant to the facts continues to foster this rigid belief in anyone can obtain great things, if and only if, he or she works and believes hard enough. Yet we see this is not true, men and women in the U.S. have worked their lives trying to achieve more only to discover in their later years that they are going to die in the class of which they were born. Therefore, believing that one can pull themselves up by their bootstraps alone blinds us to the truth.  The truth being, until change is brought to our economic structure and political ideologies we will continue to be disabled, lacking opportunity, and chasing after a dream that no longer can manifest itself.

Reflection

The discussion on Tuesday had me thinking about the "abundant oppurtunities" to be had when someone lives on America. There is a lot of immigration to America to live the American dream. At least, I think that is the major pull as to why America is so appealing. Then, I think, if America has so many oppurtunities for success, why are so many families here starving, with no work avaliable? I think the "American Dream" makes people feel that they are above low paying jobs, and I think they feel entitled to a more luxurious living, therefore when immigrants come in, they take those jobsthat others won't. Now I am beginning to think that Americans do see themselves as superior.

Chapter 6:Engendering Inequality

Chapter 6:Engendering Inequality

Geofrey C Bilabaye

This chapter is very controversial in my opinion especially in its beginning. At some points this is proving my point in previous posts that, as human beings, it is a natural process to firstly notice differences before we see the similar things among ourselves.

There no doubt that men are projected by the society to be dominant, overall decision makers of a family or a society or a community. Historically that has been the work of men.

On the other side, women are seen as second class citizens of a society with less freedom and rights compared to those of men, main reason being they are women.

If we take in consideration over the course of time, women have so far accomplished the same tasks that men are well known for by the society, when they were given a chance to prove themselves.

Therefore, in summary I strongly believe women can do just as much of a good job as men can. If the society would give them a chance, my point will be proven. I have come across some very smart, admirable and very hard working women in my life, to actually be very positive that women are as good as men in every aspect of life.

Don't forget that we are still on chapter 5 this week :)

Poster I Seen-Black History Month

Notice the dinner they are serving.

It's All About The Bullshit.

Oh chapter five!! I really enjoyed the second section of chapter five, not because it was giving us happy information but it is shining a light on interesting information. One first thing that Massey talked about really caught my attention. He wrote that in all history of the United States our minimum wage is the lowest it has been when related to living cost. Last night I was able to watch just a small portion of the State of the Union Address. President Obama stated that he wanted to have the federal minimum wage raised to $9 an hour by the end of 2015. That is a long time away but I am in full support of this change, and this section shows good reason of why it should be raised!

The reason I titled my post the way that I did is because of how Massey used it in his writing. I have posted the comment that it all matters about who you know, but it is also important to have money. It really ticks me off when I hear about people getting what they want because they paid a price (cash) to get it. I know that it happens all the time but I don't think as many people realize how much it effects our everyday lives.

Side note: Some of the graphs are a little tricky. Can we discuss them in class more? And can we talk about polarization?!

Blue, White or Pink, we all wear collars

I found that chapter 6 showed an ugly side of American stratification.  Though it has been seen throughout history, I truly believe that we are coming to a point where women are seen as equal in society, which in my opinion should've happened a long time ago.  On that note, I do not believe in gender essentialism.  Women can do anything a man can do, short of urinating standing up, and I am probably mistaken there even.  CNN was constantly talking about the controversy around letting women participate in active duty in the military, which I find completely proposterous, because I know women that could make the taliban run in fear.  Not even kidding.  On a different note, I found the charts and graphs in chapter 6 to be a little hard to understand.  It could've just been me, but still.  Overall, a very inciteful chapter.

You can't do this, we made a deal!

In a way, I am having a kind of moral catch 22.  I agree whole-heartedly with the idea of a pro-union, Democratic political economy, but I completely disagree with the racial bias that it posed to African Americans.  If it weren't for that critical flaw, in my opinion it would've worked.  However, the downfall of the bargaining power of the proletariate was a true tragedy, a triple blow; Taft-Hartley, Landrum-Griffin, Ronald Reagan.  It is truly a sad day when we elect people to serve us by our word, who then turn on us and strip us of our rights to collectively bargain for our rights as workers in the United States.

Chapter 5

Geofrey C BIlabaye (Political and Economic Columnist)

 

In this reading, there are mainly two things that caught my attention, first is the political economy of poverty where the author has discussed some of the most controversial things that take place in America currently. Secondly, The signing of civil rights and workers unions in America.

 

The political economy of poverty where the author discusses the ridistribution of wealth is a very interesting topic in my opinion. The interesting thing about redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor, is how both sides present legitimate ideas in their favors respectively.

 

The distribution of wealth is the right idea at certain circumstances and wrong at certain circumstances. In case of a country in depression, for instance during President Franklin D Roosevelt, the re-distribution of wealth from the rich to the poor was one of the biggest key solution to how the country was able to come out of the depression in the first place, because FDR was able to put in place policies that guaranteed the poor are not being exploited by the careless rising of prices of the products that consumers bought by that time, but there were forms of progressive taxation that were developed by that time which worked great in ensuring that the income gap was not as ridiculous.

 

The signing of civil rights and workers union in America is also an interesting subject Massey brings up. Historically speaking, all the good cause political and social issues have taken a significant time to finally be implemented as laws of land, or to be used as governing process of the land. My point is, despite what goes on, the debates in congress and different opinions from individual persons on controversial topics, by the end of day, there will always be a good solution. It could take a while, several months or several years but the beautiful thing about America is that, finally there will be a solution.

For example, Brown vs Board of Education, the law that finally integrated black and white students in same schools was 1954, but it wasn't untill eleven years later in 1965 where the first voting rights for African Americans was signed into law. Take into consideration then, despite the signing of the first voting rights in 1965, it took 43 years up until 2008 to have the first African American president.

 

Therefore, in conclusion, i would like to say I have faith that workers unions will eventually become an implemented policy and law of the land. Its just a matter of time.

 

 





Ch. 5

This chapter absolutely appalled me. Charts make problems so much more obvious. Especially this stratification we have here in America. The fact that millionaires get taxed barely more than my parents do infuriates me. THIS is why we have stratification. Those that make less money need every penny to scrape by, and the government is taking much. But the wealthy have plenty of money to spare, yet the government takes barely anything! Our government, heck our nation is in debt, if we taxed the wealthy more, we would have more money to run our country with!

chapter 5

On page 184, I was upset to see how the tax rates for millionaires who make around two million a year are continually lowering, while those who make $20,000 a year are rising. How are we supposed to close the gap between rich and poor if the rich are surely getting richer and the poor, poorer. With that being said, people are naturally competitive. Rich Americans have no desired to lower their annual income so another American can make the same as they do. It is sad to admit, but Americans have to want to close the gap, in order to do so.

Racing to De-Unionize

 

Racing to De-unionize

 

 

               The chapter this week, "Remaking the Political Economy", caught my interest in regards to worker marginalization. Last week my focus was primarily on the mass production of workers concentrated with the Mexican race, however this week with the "race issue" somewhat behind us I wanted to focus on the concept of unionization, or the lack there of. The chapter focuses on  the Taft Hartley Act and the 1959 Landrum-Griffin Act, as a means of concentrating power among the elite and employers of who's interest these particular acts serve. However, I wanted to remark that taking such power from the hands of the employee only allows for the employer to further exploit workers. Again this very topic is similar to the Mexican work issue presented in the last chapter. With little to any rights given to employees through the use of unions, employers tend to take advantage of the employee and employer worker relationship creating an abandoned class of dependent workers who lack any representation concerning one's needs. Again we have enacted policies in which a few individuals benefit, literally, from the work of the majority. To ban unionization is in itself to declare worker's rights as unimportant matters concerning one's welfare and benefits. I believe that we have a classic view of Karl Marx's work in his basis of Conflict theory. There are two sides at work, an underprivileged class of workers who are subjected to the scrutiny of the elite in a fight to ensure worker safety and protection and most important equality within the workplace. However, we have the Bourgeoisie, the elite who are hoarding this power and wealth for themselves in a way to concentrate private gain in the upper sectors of class. However, I believe that this system is able to perpetuate itself again and again through the lack of common plight. As conditions worsen, which is the trend before social change, there should be a ban of like-minded values within the lower class that fosters an upset group of individuals causing the dismantling of these classist practices. However, a lack of class consciousness in an attempt to just "get by" and "make it", creates a "dont' rock the boat" complex, leaving disgruntled individuals trapped in a system in which they are exploited for their one and only resource through the systematic workings of a privileged machine.       

There's Your Problem...

Chapter five of Massey's Categorically Unequal brings to light a very grand fact that I think many members of the American political spectrum fail to recognize--or, perhaps, to simply acknowledge--that our current system of economic stratification does. not. work.

Massey opens the chapter discussing New Deal era economics and how things worked so long as the south stayed Democratic--essentially as long as the civil rights movement didn't take place.  Without summing up a whole lot of unnecessary history, it didn't not happen; the south went Republican and since then the face of economic and labor stratification in this country has permanently changed. 

The section about deunionization was fairly straightforward.  I was quite shocked about the disparity between unionization in the U.S. v. other nations.  Conversely, I was completely unsurprised to discover one President Reagan had managed to work his name into the unionization issue with the Air Traffic Controller's Union strike.

The section about minimum wage was very interesting.  I didn't know that as recently as 2003 the minimum wage was that low.  I found that to be stark and rather depressing.

I am interested to know what sets the poverty threshold?  I know what the poverty threshold is, that is fairly self-explanatory.  I just would like to know how they determine it.

Additionally, I would like to know more about the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act--I have heard a lot about it before but I have never actually understood what exactly it is and the chapter didn't really clear the up for me.  Talking about the acts in class and their impact on the economy would be very helpful in my comprehension of the chapter.

If there is such a thing I would like to see some numbers on what people think total welfare enrollment is v. what the actual numbers are.

The section on debt was a very interesting look on a means of stratification I had never thought of before--credit cards.  It's incredible how something so common place can be so incredibly stratifying!

The income tax stuff always amazes me--I really have no questions left about it but I love talking about it!

Oh, and here comes Mr. Reagan sneaking his way in again, Geoffery (cough, cough).

I was also unsurprised but equally disgusted by the "one dollar one vote" line, which is completely true but very, very sad.


Can we please discuss the research cited on page 188, I didn't understand it at all.

What is a P* isolation index?

I applied the race city maps to the physical separation sections and it was interesting to look at the areas of Philadelphia Massey cited in comparison with the maps--turns out they're all minority areas!

What is "transient pair bonding" as used on page 204?

I really, really enjoyed this chapter.  Not because it is fun to discuss these things but the economy is one of my favorite things to learn about through the lens of stratification because it applies very easily to one of my majors, marketing, because you can really get a feel for the grand implications of very "minor" forms of stratification.

Thanks,
Joe

Remember those maps of racial segregation...guess what....here are some maps dealing with economic segregation.

http://www.richblockspoorblocks.com/

Charts Are A Good Thing... Most Of The Time

Reading this section I just got angry. I don't even really know what to say. One thing for sure is that our government has taken a lot of turns over the years and I don't think that all of them were for the better. I think that these issues, like taxes, are still a major issue in today's world that people hear about or complain about on a daily basis.

I did like looking at the charts in the first section of the reading. I would like to discuss some of these charts in more detail in class as a whole. I especially like the chart on page 184... Why I'm not sure, but I like it. Otherwise I don't have much to say.

It's probably not healthy to watch policies being constructed because things can change rapidly.  However, here is an update on the immigration bill.  It looks like they want the boarder to be secure before more green cards are issued.  There is no agreement on what boarder security means, but it might mean more walls.  And they plan to place current illegal immigrants at the end of the line, it may take up to 10 years for some of them to get a green card (legal residence).

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-illegal-immigrants-green-card-senate-20130207,0,4764504.story

If you are interested, I follow this advocacy group on facebook.  They do a good job, and don't spam.

http://presente.org/

Here is a link to the start of the legislative process for new immigration reform.  There is no telling what the final product will look like, and no guarantees that anything will actually pass, but it's a start. To me, it does not look all that progressive, but it might give agricultural workers an easier path towards becoming residents, and eventually citizens.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/28/read-senators-release-their-plan-for-immigration-reform/

We Rock!

I like everyone's cool post names, but I'm lame and can't think of anything cool.

I think that Heather was right in that we don't really know what the problem with immigration is. I think that the main reason so many white people have a problem with it, is because they will no longer be the majority. Whites will become a minority. But if they treated the minorities with the same respect they treat other whites, then what would be the issue with being a minority? There wouldn't. I don't think that even when whites become the minority they will act like it. I think that the white race will always have issues with holding themselves above others on the simple ground of stereotypes, no matter how many times we prove them wrong.

This is from Shamika....

The other day I reflected on the characteristics of new immigrants and migrants living within American borders, in which I included several phases that must take place on the road toward assimilation. However, exploitation of labor is a primary concern within the transition from immigrant to American citizen. Throughout the chapter there is mention of the great necessity of migrant work regarding the Mexican labor force, however this work that is somewhat seen as a much needed value is quite subjective in regards to necessity. For instance, in times of labor shortage the American workforce profited from the work of Mexicans, which provided the members of the culture with access to resources that may have been unattainable otherwise. However, when resources were limited concerning the workforce industry, Mexican labor was easily disposed and disregarded as meaningless causing a displacement of workers with little to any share of resources that were of use to the culture’s sustainment. The act of disposing the labor, not only marginalizes the group but takes advantage of one’s labor contribution belittling it to merely an instrumental value, which can be mass produced at the will of the elite or the powerful who are holding the cards. The truth of the matter is the only thing of value concerning one’s work is one’s individual contribution through their labor, because they lack rights to any proportion of materials produced through that labor, therefore to treat one’s only attribute as just instrumentally valuable reduces the worth of the labor force, and exploits the workers through creating a system in which the needs of the worker are lacking in satisfaction.    

Chapter four, part two

As we discussed in class and read in chapter four, mass immagration is going to happen in America, and more minorities will stake their claim of a little piece of the United States. Along with their families and belongings, they will bring their culture, thus deepening the meaning of the ' melting pot'. This rises the question, what happens when overpopulation occurs? Which race will be the first to migrate to new land?

It's All About Who Ya Know And There Is Always Going To Be Problems

One point that stuck with me after reading this section of chapter four was when Massey was discussing the issue of legal Mexican immigrants finding a job. Growing up I was always told that you don't get opportunities or jobs unless you know someone or you know someone who knows someone. It's not like Mexicans are any different from any other person, they have to know someone too. They are people.

I just want to state this, I don't feel like the so called "problem" with immigration is going to be resolved at any point in time in the near future. I'm not even sure if the government knows what the real problem with immigration is, I don't even know if there is a true problem with immigration. And there will never be a clear answer to the question of, "What is the true underlying problem with immigration?"

America - the boy that cried "Mexican!"

One issue plagueing the whole immigration issue in America that Massey has confronted in the latter half of chapter 4 is the incessant stigmatization of Mexican immigrants.  So much so, in fact, that we have created a DMZ of sorts out of our southern border, and created a judicial witch hunt of sorts to track down immigrants who have come into this country illegally.  It is as if we are afraid that the influx of Latin American culture into our picturesque, Andy Griffith-like view of the world will tear the very fabric of our great democracy, which is completely proposterous.  It is the economic boom created by these immigrants that create thriving port cities and towns along borders and keeps our industries afloat.  Unfortunately, their presence in this country is seen by some politicians as annoying and unwanted.  Through our own stigmatizing policies, we have placed the Latin American population at the bottom of the socioeconomic rung. 

Chapter 4, Part 1

It seems to me, that when people refer to racism, the general though automatically goes straight to blacks versus whites. In my mind, Hispanics were not part of this equation, although, this chapter proves that thought process wrong. I think racism derives from one race dominating in one particular area, so in simpliest terms: jealousy. The Hispanic race was willing to do jobs that were originally offered to whites at a fraction of the pay, therefore, employers were more than happy to accept that budget cut. In my opinion, racism is just a passdown from generation to generation. I hope that eventually, it will die out.

Ch. 4 Part 1

This chapter really opened my eyes to the discrimination of the Hospanic population in our country. While I obviously knew that many people view Hispanics in a racist way, I had no idea that it went back into our history as a nation so far. The shear numbers that increased into our nation were a direct result to the policies that we invoked, and the more we attempted to keep them out, the more came in illegally. Many of the resentments of the people today, I think, are spawned from people angry at illegals, but because of the need for cheap workers who could be paid less and would do more difficult work, we brought them in.

Competition Breeds Racism

Competition Breeds Racism

Chapter Four pours an illuminating light on competition regarding a people concentrated within the underclass. Capitalism has yet again, through this particular discourse, set the stage of a fatal future for those who are Mexican American. Competition breeds Racism. It seems that whenever new immigrants arrive in the United States or in this case, inhabiting a desired land within the country, there seems to be several steps taken before full on racism can be implemented followed by amalgamation of the people. First, the group has to pose a threat to dominant ideals and the dominant group’s culture. This tends to be established through large groups and settlements of those individuals who are considered the “invaders” of the land. Large groups pose a number of problems to dominant society, including what the dominant culture believes to be the complete destruction of their way of life. Also, large groups of new and settling individuals lack a stable base within social atmospheres, such as neighborhoods, which can be attributed to the increase of crime in overpopulated and densely packed communities. Within the reading for instance, the text points out that little thought or action was given to those of Mexican heritage in the beginning because they posed little to any real threat of the dominant culture’s livelihood. However, the book continues to stress that when competition for goods and services began to become an issue between the dominant group and the immigrant groups, racial discrimination in the form of public policy and laws, along with blatant racism, and institutionalized racism follows. Therefore, competition coupled with high rates of population not only instills the perception of limited resources, but also creates room for the development of negative stereotyping and prejudice, which leads to an all-out blockade of rights and civil liberties creating a race which systematically continues to constitute the lower-class.

Some Ad

The ad on the right hand side caught my attention this morning as I was reading the news...
Just thought I would share.

-Heather

Hello all,

I again read the whole chapter as I found it to be just another tragic novel that I had to keep reading to understand entirely.

The first question I have is what is an "underclass."  I'm assuming in this context it is a class below other classes in question--Massey's example being Hispanics v. whites (and other minorities) in the United States.  Just clarification on the definition of this concept would be nice!

The exploitation of Mexicans in the chapter was, academically, interesting to learn about as it isn't something I knew a whole lot about.  The history of Mexicans in the workforce was interesting and fairly unfortunate.  I was also bothered to find out about the lynchings of Mexicans in the south--not that I didn't foresee it but lynchings aren't a joyous subject.

I found the chapter to be almost comedic during Massey's discussion of the various acts and such the government instated.  It was quite funny to discover how much the nation actually screwed themselves over by implementing those policies.  I would like to know more about them though, just as to what exactly the complete extent was and how they connected--that was a little fuzzy for me for some reason.  Just a whole lot of numbers without a place to put them.

I was bothered by the effects of these policies on legal immigrants and U.S. workers.

Also, what is the Dillingham Commission?  I don't think that was ever expressly mentioned and I didn't know what it was.

The chapter got less funny and more bothersome as we got into the discussion of racism against Hispanics in recent years.  I was really quite surprised to discover the numbers on page 149 of the text--too many to list here, but shocking nonetheless.  I already knew about the USA PATRIOT Act which is just mortifying to me as a U.S. citizen.

As a fun chart (I know you like those) I thought the Stereotype Content Model on page 150 was very interesting.

Income disparities were pretty straightforward--unfortunately.

I also would like to know if the actions by congress discussed on page 156 actually ended up having any implications?  It says "if this happens" so I'm wondering if it has since the publishing of this book!

Thanks,
Joe

Chap. 4 Part 1

When reading this particularity section of Massey’s book the book, The American Way of Eating, keeps coming to my mind. We read this book last semester in intro to sociology and I think it is very relevant to the topic of this chapter. Over time and history it seems like the American people have used people from Mexico to work in our labor force. What I don't understand is why the American people are so angry that we have this people, Mexicans, working in America in industries for very low wages. It's a general thought that no American in his or her "right mind" would do the labor that these Mexicans are for the pay that they are making.

Immigration is still an "issue" for America today and it will most likely always be an issue in Americans eyes as long as America is a place in the world. One of the interesting facts that I learned in this section of reading is that the U.S. Border Control was created in 1924. I had never heard of the border control until the George W. Bush administration.

I just can't fully wrap my head around the idea that America can't come up with some form of solution or something!! I would also like to see more current numbers of the Hispanic population in America as of 2011, something more recent then 2007.

Something New

Let's try this for our class postings.  Remember, I want you to post about our readings for the day before our class meeting.  You can also post other things relevant to the course if you desire.