My social DE-construction of gender!

I have several issues with this segment regarding sociological perspective of sex and gender roles of human beings. First off, I have an issue with the sociological belief that sex AND gender roles are socially constructed. Gender roles, I can agree, have evolved to be what they are based on influence from society. However, sex as a variable that can be altered and shaped by society is untrue. I am not talking about drag queens and other types of subcultures; these individuals seem to use the fact that their sexual assignment is fluid as entertainment and in fact flaunt their overlapping sexual identity. Rather, I am referring to the concept of "transgender"; that a human being can decide they should be a different sex and go on to have a surgical transformation to become the opposite sex. Physiologically, there are 2 sexes, male and female. These sexes exist from conception and carry with them certain biological traits that no surgeon can recreate; internal sexual features which carry the sole purpose of reproduction cannot be reassigned. To say that socialization can create a "sex" is rather ridiculous.

I think there are great evolutionary forces at work that have helped to shape what our current gender roles rather than simply social forces. One of the primary issues that the text addresses regards women's domesticated roles in many societies world wide. Sociologists argue that children are socialized from the beginning to adhere to roles of women caring for children, cooking, cleaning and nurturing, where as boys learn to explore, play sports, and intellectualize.

Now if we examine the roles of men and women as they relate to the science of human beings, we find many scientific and biological explanations for the current gender roles. For thousands of years, human babies were born to women. Due to the fact that infants remain inherently helpless for a relatively long period of time, woman have been designed to nurture these babies by breastfeeding. Until "recent" advances in technology and science which allow women to bottle feed, feed formula, pump and store breast milk, etc, there was no option for the nurturing of infants than to remain with them constantly to provide such nourishment. It was critical that the males were able to physically carry the weight of supporting the primitive family, including hunting, farming, and defending against predators. If we look at gender roles from this perspective, we can deduce that evolution has had much to do with the shaping of modern gender roles. Even though nowadays women have more options regarding care of their infants in the early years, the "subordinate" domestic roles that women have assumed since the dawn of mankind that were ESSENTIAL for the survival of the human race have not been so quick to adjust to the new technology. It like trying to change something that has always been a certain way; the change takes conditioning and practice. More and more women are working away from the home than ever before. This trend will continue to grow and the "traditional" roles of women will also adjust in time. Contrastingly, the role of the male human has remained static and has not been fundamentally tested or changed. Accordingly, women have encountered resistance from males regarding the change of gender roles.

This slow evolution of gender roles can also be used to explain why so many women work in the lowest paying, unskilled jobs as compared to men. Because of the slow evolution of women's rights, for example, the right to education, women had previously only been able to obtain such jobs that required little to no educational qualification. Even though this educational gap has lessened significantly in our country, many nations are slower to change and the women continue to seek out easily obtainable jobs that do not require as much preparation and separation from their families to secure.

That being said, I do not necessarily believe that the above explanation clearly explains gender roles in all human societies. Some, like the book mentions, have evolved in such a way that male and female roles are reversed in comparison to modern American society's. In contrast to the above theory, it is interesting that the societies that exhibit marked differences from our society are isolated tribes with few ties to the modern world.

Global Inequality

Our world is stratified according to the countries who have, and those who have not. The interesting thing about this is that ALL countries, whether rich or poor, have a portion of their population living in poverty. The wealthiest nations, like the U.S., and the poorest nations, like Haiti and India, have people struggling and suffering (although the extent of the suffering, including malnutrition and starvation, may differ from country to country). So who's job is it to fix this problem? Certainly there is not enough money, aid, or compassion in the world to solve the issue of global poverty. Each nation should take responsibility upon itself to fix their own economic(and humanitarian) issues.

In the podcast, Ms. Lerner mentions that global inequality affects the cost of the products we buy. The United States, for instance, uses global inequality to "help" the population here to prosper financially. Take the Wal-Mart empire, for example. Wal-Mart (as well as similar superstores) purchase nearly all of the products they sell from manufacturers overseas, mainly China. They do this because in order to pass on low prices to the consumer, they must purchase the goods at low prices from the manufacturer. No where in America can these items be made at such low cost to the company, so in turn they take advantage of the poorer areas of China and hire laborers at extremely low wages in order to maintain the made-cheap-bought-cheap-sold-cheap system. Many Americans might feel sympathetic towards or even compassionate for the individuals who are forced to scrape out a living working for minuscule wages in uncomfortable conditions ,manufacturing toys and clothes for sale in the U.S.. However, these are the same Americans who want everything "cheap and fast!" and do the bulk of their spending at Wal-Mart and the like. If American manufacturers were to take over the production for Wal-Mart's products, it is true that many many people here would find employment, but the costs of the products would increase dramatically. And to address the question Ms. Lerner asks, "Who benefits?" from the system: Without global inequality, the economic situation in the United States would not be what it is today. Capitalist countries like our own use the global economy to their advantage to cater to the desires of the consumer, as well as help big businesses gain financial growth.

Any followers?

I would just like to point out that the fact that I am "following" the blogs of everyone in our class, and yet I only have 2 followers to mine....does any one even read this?? :)

Does Class Matter?

Social class is, like the People Like Us website states, the 800-lb gorilla that we don't really like to discuss in realistic terms. We all would like to say that class does not matter, that we don't segregate or stereotype, that we treat everyone equally. Unfortunately that is usually not the case and America does place much emphasis on the class system in place.

Some professions, like the health care field, require that social class not be a deterrent to the patient receiving the best care. Nurses, for example, are trained to take care of each patient equally. They each deserve the same ultimate respect and compassion, regardless of where they fall on the social hierarchy. However, the mere system of class itself determines what kind of patients we may treat in a given hospital. Although the hospitals in our area will treat and care for everyone who requires it, certain people from the lower classes (for example) will not seek health care because they may be unable to afford it. Being uninsured and fearful of large medical bills, many lower class individuals avoid seeking care. On the other hand, many of our patients who are in the lower class who DO seek treatment are fall under state Medicaid provisions. While these patients may not realize it, their charts are stamped in large red letters "MEDICAID" so that the physicians are able to determine right away what kind of care would be least costly and still be covered by the state. In this way, class determines treatment options. Upper class Americans may have better insurance and personal funds to pay for treatment out of pocket, so for these individuals, their health care is rarely an issue.

Another interesting feature regarding social class discussion is how individuals in each class view themselves. Many perceive their OWN class as the in-group (or reference group), rather than be envious and striving towards what they do not have. There is a sense of ownership and pride when one talks about where they "came from" , whether it be regarding old money and silver spoons, or growing up in the projects and working hard to make money their own way. The out-group becomes the other social classes...we always seem to find something wrong with those who either have it better or worse than we do. The opening scene of "Chicago-The Streets of Heaven" video shows a youth doing just that- he announces with pride that he was "born and raised" in the projects.

People Like Us, under its "resources" tab, has a very interesting site that allows you to input your zip code and receive a detailed demographic describing the "types" of families and social situations common to your area. It even gives examples of commonalities to the class, like the types of cars they often drive and the leisure activities they partake in. The word "class" is never mentioned; however the website calls them "segments" and titles them with names like "White Picket Fences" and "Shot Guns and Pickups". This site is aimed (I believe) at advertisers and marketers in order to find the most lucrative areas with the proper demographic to market their products and services where they will have the highest probability of success. It would be interesting to use a site like this to investigate some of the American cities where there is a great deal of social class division in place; Specifically, to examine areas where (like the text book mentions) there are a great deal of people and the gap in the distribution of wealth and income is large.

So does class matter? When discussing human beings and the morality behind treating everyone equally and justly, no, class does not matter. But it is clear in our capitalist, consumer-based culture that social class division is everywhere and does indeed impact the way our citizens view themselves and treat each other.

Changing Social Connections?

Are Americans today more isolated due to technology?

In a word, yes. There is increased physical isolation associated with the today's technologically-advanced, internet/virtually-driven world.

Technology today has allowed for fewer and fewer face-to-face transactions of many types. Banking, reservations, directions, appointments, and shopping, among other things, are now done more often than not through automated systems via telephone or internet. Also, a large number of Americans have the luxury of working from home because of widespread access to internet and other technological systems. Employment by companies who allow work-from-home, or"Telecommuting", as the textbook calls it, as well as home-based businesses, blogs, direct sales, and other similar enterprises are on the rise. The people who do this kind of work may feel it benefits them, because they are able to skip the commute or stay at home with their children, for example. But in reality, they are becoming physically isolated from their communities, friends, and neighbors. How often did Americans 25 years ago leave their homes in order to shop, socialize, pay bills and other errands? Compared to nowadays, it was much more frequently. There were no other options back then. Now, its not uncommon for individuals who make their livelihood on the internet to say that they haven't left the house in days or even weeks at a time.

More and more people belong to "social" networking sites, like Facebook and Myspace, and refer to these virtual networks in terms that in the past were reserved for ACTUAL, face-to-face relationships (like the words "friend", "group", "event", etc). Many individuals chose to use the Internet to meet prospective mates, using popular dating sites. Activities like these all but eliminate the individual's need or desire to meet new people the old-fashioned way. The use of the a fore mentioned sites can be very appealing for some: without the need for true face-to-face interaction, otherwise shy, anxious, or anti-social type people can become involved with others without leaving the comforts of their own homes.

Which ultimately leads to my next point. Alternately, it can be argued that people that utilize the virtual world have networks and belong to social groups that span the globe and cultural boundaries; these memberships would not exist at all without the Internet and the accessibility it provides. While I agree that the benefits of globalization are vast and great, there is a definite impersonal feel to these relationships. In fact, the human touch cannot be attained without actual human contact.

I don't foresee any sort of revert back to the social foundations of years ago taking place in the future. Ultimately, more and more of our activities will be available to us virtually, and humans will become the products of more abstract socialization and social networks and groups (Ever see the movie "Wall-E"? It shows people living in close proximity to each other who never speak to each other without the aid of virtual messaging and video conferencing). Perhaps the word "social" will be redefined in the future. It will no longer have physical, in-person connotative tones that it does today. Instead, it will simply be defined by the interactions an individual participates in on a daily basis in the virtual world as well as the physical one.

The Criminal Justice System

The "deviance" chapter in our textbook touches on the issue of crime reduction strategies, and asks the question "Are Prisons the Answer?" Before reading the section, I thought the answer to the crime-reduction debate was easy: toughen the laws, put more offenders behind bars, for longer amounts of time, and make it harder for them to get out early.

I did not realize that America's prison system was so overcrowded, with more than 2.2 million people behind bars; so overcrowded in fact "that the average convict serves only a third of his sentence" (194). And considering the large amount of money it costs to house a prisoner per year (over $25,000) its nearly impossible to put more people behind bars for longer. Then there is the fact that prison "hardens" criminals. By forcing them to live in such a brutal environment, they actually can become more dangerous to society. Another issue surfaces when repeat offenders come in and out of the prison system over and over again; they simply become "immune" to the effects the prison environment has on their behavior, and rehabilitation is not probable.

So what do we do about this? Unfortunately, I do not have a specific answer. I agree with Robert Gangi, quoted from our text: "building more prisons to address crime is is like building more graveyards to address a fatal disease" (195). One of the fundamental issues that needs attention is the subject of poverty in our country. The cycle of impoverishment and criminal activity must be interrupted somehow in order to decrease the amount of crime in our country. Following the Labeling Theory, when these people are labeled "poor" they seem to almost follow their own self-fulfilling prophecy. They aren't provided the same opportunities for advancement as middle and upper-class citizens, which in turn leads many to believe that there is no other way of life than hardship, struggle, and turning to otherwise "deviant" behaviors. It seems the best way to prevent these behaviors is to assist the impoverished population of this country and provide more opportunities, so that criminal activity never becomes an option.

Works Cited

Giddens, Anthony et al. Introduction to Sociology. 7th Edition. New York: W.W. Norton &
Company, Inc., 2009. Print.