SOC 100 - Gender

This assignment was pretty easy. He had it embedded in the video lecture and even though I don't remember exactly what it was, he said to write a couple of paragraphs on Viagra and Botox. Write about how they are marketed and the social constraints. I got a 43/45 so I was happy with it. Here it is:

Viagra, Botox and Social Constraints

Pfizer makes Viagra, an erectile dysfunction medication for men. This is not an over the counter (OTC) medication, but it is prescribed by doctors for men who have trouble with erectile dysfunction. This medication has been very popular for around 13 years now and since its inception has gained tremendous popularity with men over 50 years of age. Since it came on the market many other similar medications have followed that are similar in nature, but Viagra is the first and most widely used today. The advertising and marketing of Viagra is targeted toward men. Advertisements show strong, seemingly successful, healthy men promoting the product Images are of masculine, good looking men in their 50’s, dressed in business suits or nice casual attire ("Viagra," ). They are usually White or African American men and I don’t think I’ve ever seen any other races or ethnic groups in these ads. On Viagra’s website the description of erectile dysfunction lists the problems and builds the fear of not being able to perform with a woman. Specifically it states erectile dysfunction is when a man has difficulty getting an erection or keeping it long enough for sex. In the ads most of the men look to be either middle or upper class in society, nicely dressed and sometimes the outdoors type. They look strong and powerful and as in one ad, “in charge” of their life. When it comes to social constraints I think normally in our society we think of older men in the later years (65+) as not having sex at all or at least very little and not being concerned with it. At least that’s the way it was seen for years. However, now it seems to be saying that men and women in their later stages of life do want to have sex and have it on a regular basis. There’s even a pill similar to Viagra and it’s taken daily. This is breaking the old idea that sex is for the young. Another social constraint is that people just didn’t use to talk about things like this in public and we never saw it on TV. It wasn’t acceptable. That has certainly changed and advertisements like these are all over the media. Talking about these things is not taboo any longer.

            Botox use on wrinkles was first documented by a plastic surgeon in California in 1989. Cosmetic use of botulinum toxin type A has become popular with celebrities who view it as less intrusive and/or artificial than other types of plastic surgery. The results of cosmetic procedures vary but can last up to eight months ("Botulinum toxin,”). On the website advertising and marketing is targeted toward women. Images show nicely dressed, beautiful, happy, confident women who are smiling ("Botox cosmetic home,”). The images of most of the women look to be in their 40’s, and all who appear in the forefront of the advertising are White American women. On one page they show before and after photos of women who have taken the treatment. On that page there are many photos and the majority are women, but there are couple of men. Most are White women, but I did see one African American women. In the majority of the ads the women all appear to be middle or upper class. On the webpage “About Botox”, it lists some reasons why you might want to have it. It specifically mentions you might want to have it if you look “tired or unapproachable”, which I see as reaching out to women’s fears. When it comes to social constraints I use to think that our society forbid things like plastic surgery and treatments like Botox strictly for the purpose of vanity and we never use to see it advertised on TV. Plastic surgery use to be for people that needed it, say if a person was disfigured in a car accident, but it’s not that way anymore.  It’s acceptable today to see ads like these in all the media. These ads appeal to a person’s vanity and that’s okay today. It’s perfectly acceptable for women and men to talk about these issues openly. Today, people don’t hide the fact they’re considering Botox and people are less likely today to hide the fact that they had the procedure . Also, our society used to think of signs of aging, like wrinkles, as a natural progression and a sign of wisdom, but now people have Botox to remove those signs of aging. In the ads it’s promoted that if you want to be successful you have to look good, either handsome if you are a man, or young and beautiful if you’re a women. I can also see that our society used to believe that when a person ages, looks should be less important.  When you got older you were expected to slow down and stay at home. However, our human lifespan is increasing, our health is better and age is not a constraint like it used to be. As people age, they are more active today than ever before and they care about physical appearances.

            Whether it’s bold advertising on television about erectile dysfunction or talking openly with friends about removing wrinkles with Botox, social constraints have loosened.

 

References

Botox cosmetic home page. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.botoxcosmetic.com/home.aspx

Botulinum toxin. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botulinum_toxin

Viagra. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.viagra.com

SOC 100 - Global Stratification Assignment

Okay, we had a video with this assignment as with most of our assignments, but I'm not able to post the video because it's not mine to post. We're reading the chapter on Global Stratification in Essentials of Sociology, A Down to Earth Approach, Henslin, 9th Edition. Here's the assignment: In the video lecture it was discussed how the concepts we studied in Culture strongly influenced social stratification in different countries. In other words how does the definition of each of the three concepts that sociologists use to measure social stratification influence the strata in a society? (Power, Property, and Prestige). Here's my paper:

The Three Elements: Property, Power and Prestige

Property, power and prestige normally occur together in a society. Yet they are not always evenly distributed. Property is all the wealth, investments, deeded and titled properties, and other tangible sources of income. Power is the ability to get one's way even in the face of opposition to one's goals. Prestige is the degree of social honor attached with your position in society (Cheney, 2009). How do these influence the strata in society? In our country and in other industrialized nations wealth or income is the major determining factor of a person’s social status.  However, in the least industrialized nations they are less dependent upon income as a means of stratifying the society. They have a stratification system based more on power and prestige.  For instance, in Sudan the number of cattle a family owns is a sign of wealth and status. In some countries a shaman or medicine man ranks high in status and little importance is placed on material possessions or income.

Max Weber said that three elements determine social class: property, power and prestige (the three Ps). So let’s look at our country and how the three Ps occur together but aren’t always evenly distributed.  In our country people who are wealthy and in the upper class tend to also have power and prestige. Yet this is not always the case. Plumbers may make more money than college professors, but holding a professorship is more prestigious than being a “blue collar worker” (Cliffnotes.com, 2011). Normally people who have very powerful positions also tend to have more wealth and prestige. Again, this is not always the case. Look at the President of the United States. This is a very powerful position. President Obama wields a lot of power, but in fact doesn’t make that much money in comparison to the tremendous power his position holds.  Firefighters are viewed by 61% of the public as having “very great prestige,” and rightly so – with an occupation that puts them decisively in harm’s way in order to save lives and properties, it’s of little wonder why firefighters stand firmly at the top of the occupation prestige list (Tu, 2009). However, the salary for firefighters on the average is only around $41,000 per year. Given all of the prestige of a firefighter one would think they would have more power and wealth, but they don’t. 

In the least industrialized countries income isn’t a major determining factor of social class. In those countries stratification is based more on power and prestige.  In our society wealth and income play an important role in determining social class, but as we’ve seen, even though power, property and prestige normally occur together, they aren’t always evenly distributed.

 

References

Cheney, P. (2009). Stratification and the three p's. Retrieved from 
http://freebooks.uvu.edu/SOC1010/index.php/09.html

CliffsNotes.com. What Divides Us: Stratification. 28 Oct 2011
http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/topicArticleId-26957,articleId-26879.html

Tu, D. (2009, August 02). Top 10 most (& least) prestigious jobs in america: How much they earn and     how to land them [Web log message]. Retrieved from         
http://www.billshrink.com/blog/4556/best-worst-jobs-america/

SOC 100 - Discussion Posts Day Five

Okay, here is the final discussion post. This series of posts are related to the "Children of the Plains" video presented by 20/20. This was a very good video, I thought, on the Lakota in the Pine Ridge reservation of South Dakota. See the other posts to get the full list of discussion questions. Here is the final question: Day five:  Draw your own conclusions from the video about the little girl and the middle school boy, will they succeed? and here is my post:

The boy, Robert Looks Twice, has strong character. He’s honest, hardworking and is on a good path in life. He’s determined to overcome the odds. He’s quarterback on the football team, student council president of his class and he dreams of better things. These are all admirable for any 12 year old in any ethnic group.  He’s in a difficult situation on the reservation, but is very intelligent and wise for his age. Just the fact that he knows his struggles are making him stronger is a good indication to me that he’ll succeed. I think he’ll do his best to stay away from drugs and alcohol and I think he’ll try his best to go far in his education and even graduate college. He has some opportunities out there and with just a little help from others he has a chance to succeed. I think his elders will give him the support he needs and he’ll continue to do well. I’m very hopeful for him; he’s a modern day warrior.
The little girl, Louise, has had a tough time. She’s already tried marijuana, to commit suicide and she still has thoughts of it according to the picture she drew. I’m very sad for her and she needs a good support system to overcome this. Her psychologist is a long way away and she probably doesn’t have many sessions with him. She is fragile and she doesn’t eat well at home. Her home environment is sad, because her mother drinks and her home is cold. On the bright side she is good in math and has a bright personality. She seems to keep her head up and the teachers, school counselor and principle of her school watch over her. Even though things are tough now I think with a good support system and people watching over she can survive and succeed. I sincerely hope she does. Heather Thompson, from a neighboring tribe graduated from Harvard law. With a role model like that Louise can succeed. Those role models can teach Louise resilience.

SOC 100 - Discussion Posts Day Four

Day four: Derive from the four theories about prejudice your own theory as to why Pine Ridge Sioux are in the social condition they are living. Here's my post:

It’s a combination of things.  I can see that sometimes they use a scapegoat. They blame their social condition on others, white people, the gov’t, businesses, and educational institutions. People often unfairly blame their troubles on another or a scapegoat. Frustrated, people strike out and look for someone to blame.
Our society is full of authoritarian people who believe that things are either right or wrong and ambiguity disturbs them. They get disturbed when they see norms and values that are different from their own. The authoritarian views people who are different as inferior and this assures them that their own position is right. I think this is what happened to the Native Americans when Europeans settled in their land. They saw the Native Americans as being different and couldn’t understand it, so they viewed the Native Americans as inferior. That’s how the prejudice started and it didn’t stop there, they killed them and ran them off their land.
In another theory functionalist’s show, “Prejudice becomes practically irresistible when state machinery is used to advance the cause of hatred. To produce prejudice, the Nazis harnessed government agencies, the schools, police, courts, and mass media. The results were devastating.” We can see how functional it was for our gov’t, who wanted the land and resources from the Native Americans, to use its power to advance hatred toward the Native people. I think the Pine Ridge Sioux are in the social condition they’re in, because of the campaign waged against them years ago by the federal gov’t. Conflict theorists focus on how groups compete for scarce resources and in the case of the Native Americans I believe it was the land, gold in the Black Hills and buffalo. At that time Europeans, French, and others saw themselves as able to make gains only at the expense of the Native Americans. They still haven’t recovered from the devastation.
When we label a group it affects the way we see people. Labels cause selective perception as it states in our textbook. Long ago people started labeling the Native Americans and using horrible words such as savages, dirty, and lazy. That really affected how people perceived them and even though it’s better today, it’s taken a long time to correct those awful labels. I think the Lakota Sioux are still feeling the repercussions of those labels. In the video it shows how some businesses still today don’t want to hire Native Americans. Also, it shows how difficult it is for them to start a business. As the textbook states, “If we apply a label to a group, we tend to perceive its members as all alike.”
Finally, I think some of it may be contributed to labeling and self-fulfilling stereotypes. The Native Americans were labeled as lazy a long time ago, and not deserving good jobs. Being denied good jobs they got what they could and it wasn’t the best of things. People see the social condition they’re in and then the cycle starts all over again. The discrimination that created the “laziness” in the first place passes unnoticed (Henslin, 2011). The Pine Ridge Sioux aren’t in the social condition they’re in because they want to be, it’s because of a lot of different factors. It’ll take some time and some good people like the children we saw in the video to change things.

SOC 100 - Discussion Posts Day Three

Day three: How are the three ways of learning to discriminate illustrated in the video? Here is my posting for this question. Again, this is a discussion assignment for Sociology 100. We were instructed to read out of the textbook and then watch a a video. The video is called "Children of the Plains" and was aired on 20/20 a while back. The link is here: http://abc.go.com/watch/2020/SH559026/VD55148316/2020-1014-children-of-the-plains

My post:

Discrimination is the result of an attitude called prejudice. Prejudice is pre-judging, usually negatively.  I also see in the textbook it talks about learning prejudice and one way we learn is from association. We’re not born with prejudice we learn it from the people around us. So in the video I see this in a couple of ways. One, the video shows an old western movie with stage coach and Indians chasing it. People learn discrimination from the way the Indians were depicted in those movies. It’s so negative. Second, I think that negativity just perpetuated and spread from one person to the next, through association. The video shows in a lot of places that many people discriminate against the Indians.
The second way we learn is the “far reaching nature of prejudice.” In the video businesses discriminated against them. They won’t hire Indians and in one part a lady pleads for businesses to come and open stores in the reservation and for businesses to hire Indians. In that same part of the video a man pleads for education. They need schools but are discriminated against and new schools aren’t built there. He asks for that and also for teachers to come and teach and share their knowledge with them. “Bring your education to our community”, he says. Part of the far reaching nature of prejudice is that if you discriminate against one group, you'll tend to discriminate against another. I can really see this with businesses in the video. Also, in the video is the federal government and its discrimination against the Lakota. It seems like for no reason at all or maybe just ignorance, the federal government wanted to westernize the Lakota. The Lakota aren’t the first people they discriminated against. They took their children away and prohibited them to speak Lakota. They cut their hair and changed their clothes. They wanted to kill the Indian and save the man. It’s so far reaching.
Finally, the third way that people learn to be prejudice is internalizing dominant norms. People can actually be prejudice against their own group. In the textbook it talks about ethnic maps too. I can see the ethnic maps illustrated in the video. The pictures they show of intoxicated Indians on the streets, the small lucrative liquor stores in that small town and the signs everywhere that forbid alcohol and drugs. The video shows the beer cans on the side of the road too. This would have to have a strong impact on the people living there, especially the children. The video illustrates this by interviewing the young kids about alcohol and drug use and we hear those children saying they don’t like it and that it’s bad. Those are good things they’re learning and they want change. They want to get a better education and stay away from drugs and alcohol. From this ethnic map they could be learning to discriminate against their own group too. As the textbook says, “Apparently, we all learn the ethnic maps of our culture and, along with them, their route to biased perception.”

SOC 100 - Discussion Posts Day Two

Day two:  Why do some people feel an intense sense of ethnic identity, while others feel hardy any?  Relative size, power, appearance, discrimination. Here's my post:

When a group is small in size (minority), has little power, looks different than most in society and is discriminated against they can feel a strong sense of ethnic identity. I like what the textbook said about discrimination. When the smaller group is discriminated against they are closer and get the feeling of “we-ness”. The opposite is true of the dominant group in society. When a group is large, has power, looks like most in society and isn’t discriminated against then they lack a sense of ethnic identity. I guess they don't have that "we-ness".
I saw all of these four factors played out in the video, size, power, appearance and discrimination. The Lakota’s are small in size (number) and they have a strong sense of ethnic identity. As depicted in the video, they are a small group on a reservation located in Southwestern South Dakota. Also from the video, they don’t have much power because the federal government took it and their property away from them a long time ago. As for appearance and discrimination, the Lakota look different than most in society and they’re definitely discriminated against.  The federal government discriminated against them in the past and today they don’t have educational, job or business opportunities like they should. The Lakota (minority) do ethnic work as mentioned in the textbook.  In the video, in ceremonies like the powwow, they wear the traditional clothing, headdresses, play traditional songs and instruments. Even outside ceremonies they wear a traditional hairstyle, speak Lakota and practice their own customs. They have their own schools too. So I think the video and our text in this part really coincides.

SOC 100 - Discussion Posts Day One

The next assignment we had in our Sociology 100 class was a discussion post. It was series of five posts answering some questions about a video we saw. The video is "Children of the Plains" and was a 20/20 special on the Pine Ridge reservation in South Dakota. A very good 20/20 video. Here is the link and I reccommend it:
http://abc.go.com/watch/2020/SH559026/VD55148316/2020-1014-children-of-the-plains
Day one:  How do the six myths and reality play out in this video? The six myths come from the textbook and I didn't quite get all of them.

Here's my post:

The first myth I see played out in this video is the myth of pure races. As we read in our text, this is myth. The video portrays the Lakota here as being unlike any other people. In our text it states that even though we have many visible differences, we humans are strikingly very homogeneous (same or similar nature). The second myth I see from our text is the myth of fixed number of races and I don’t see this played out in the video other than there are just two large groupings of people mentioned and that’s, Indian and White.  Either you’re Indian or White, but I don’t believe that’s the real message they intend, but I think that’s all that is mentioned.  I think this video shows a good deal about the culture of the Lakota and this breaks the myth that race is fixed by biology. As stated in our text, “race” depends more on the society in which we live than on biological characteristics.  I particularly like the powwow scenes and the dress of the dancers in this video.  Probably the biggest one that stands out for me is the myth of racial superiority. When the video told of how in as late as the 1940’s these Lakota children were being sent to western schools and sent there to be westernized, that myth just popped out. The federal government believed that they (Lakota) had to be westernized as if the Lakota were inferior. The children had their hair cut, and their clothes changed.
The reality is that no race is superior and even biologists can’t decide how people should be classified into races. People act on beliefs and not always the facts. Alcoholism and drug abused was shown in the video, but the fact is these problems plaque all people. I don’t think it was the intent of the video to suggest it’s only a problem on the reservation, but I can see how some people may get the idea that it’s because of race that it’s such a problem there. As the book said, people will act on perceptions and beliefs, not facts.

SOC 100 - Assignment on Deviance

Okay here's one assignment that I thought I did pretty well on, but the professor didn't think much of it. I received a 35/45 on this paper. The assignment is: How do the Functionalist explain the difference between “Street Crime” and “White Collar Crime?”  So from the text, the video lecture, and your internet research, how should society deal with white collar crime?I can't post the video and let me say that some of these are hard to watch. It's a video lecture and it basically a power point pres. So here it is:

Deterring White Collar Crime

How does the Functionalist explain the difference between “Street Crime” and “White Collar Crime?”  Functionalist stress that just as education and job opportunities are different for the social classes, so are the crimes that they commit. The lower social classes commit most of the street crime while the upper social classes commit the white collar crime (Henslin, 2011).  You have to have the opportunity to commit the crime. In other words, you have to be a doctor in order to commit the types of white collar crimes that a doctor can commit. In this paper I’ll try to write a good explanation on how our society should deal with the white collar criminal.

In our text there are many good cases presented that show how white collar criminals have gotten off almost completely free from any punishment.  Many individuals get off without spending one day in jail. Sears defrauded $100 million from victims and to avoid a criminal trial they pleaded guilty. Macy’s and Bloomingdales were committing similar crimes and to avoid criminal prosecution they settled out of court (Henslin, 2011). When companies commit these crimes I think all people directly involved need to serve time in prison, the company should be fined severely and restitution needs to be made to the victims. In addition, companies should be put on probation. I don’t believe that our government should reward criminal behavior with new lucrative contracts as in the case of Sioux Manufacturing in North Dakota. After Sioux Manufacturing was found guilty of cheating the government, they were given another contract to produce helmets (Henslin, 2011).

According to one web document Congress has passed laws to help prosecutors with white collar crime.  In the 1970’s and 80’s a wave of laws and statues known as the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) was originally associated with mafia-related organized crime, but was soon applied to white collar crime.  Also, in 2002 Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) to improve corporate governance -- the relationship and accountability between corporations and their stakeholders (McGrath). This was in light of Enron and other widely publicized scandals during that time period. I disagree that punishment has gone too far when judges try to make an example of these cases. They should be held to a higher standard and after spending time in prison I don’t think that these white collar criminals should be allowed to go back into business. Investment bankers convicted and sent to prison should not be allowed back into the banking industry. Tougher sanctions need to be imposed on these white collar criminals after they’re freed.  Life in jail isn’t the answer, but maybe lifelong consequences are.

Going back to the beginning, to commit a white-collar crime the person(s) need to have the opportunity. They’re in a position of power and have a fiduciary responsibility to many people. Because of the position they hold, they should be held to a higher standard. When they are convicted they need to be fined and punished severely. Heavy fines can be imposed on companies and the companies put on probation. A judge can impose additional sanctions, or conditions after these white collar criminals are released to prevent them from being put back into another position of power. Maybe lifelong consequences will deter them from committing white collar crimes in the first place.

References

Henslin, J. (2011). Essentials of sociology: a down-to-earth approach. (Ninth ed., p.                                   145-146). Pearson.

McGrath, J. (n.d.). How white collar crime works. Retrieved from                                                               http://money.howstuffworks.com/white-collar-crime6.htm