People are still people

I thought the Shift Happens video managed to acheive its goal of raising awareness about global change and the fantastic rate at which innovation and information technology are advancing. Still, I think that the increase in information is not necesarrily the most important aspect that we need to focus on. Yes, more information is being transmitted, but that doesn't mean its all essential information. MySpace is not essential information. It's a method of entertainment and social networking that happens to use a tool called the internet, that didn't exist a few decades ago. What I am trying to say is that while more information is going around the world, I think that for the most part, people are still people.

What educators need to do it focus on teaching kids how to think and learn, as well as how to work effectively with others towards a goal. It would be good to use up-to-date technology as a way of building skills in this, but on the other hand if you teach someone how to learn, they can learn anything they need to after that. Regardless of how much information technology takes off, nothing is going to ever replace a kind word, a hug, a friendly gesture. The most influential people will not be those with the most information or the most technological skill, but those who can inspire and motivate others to acheive a goal. Educators should be preparing students to be leaders, and to seek goals that are worthy of acheiving and that will benefit our world.

Mills is basically right!

Unlike pluralists, C Wright Mills argues that the government has become increasingly cetralized. While states used to have more autonomy and participated in a true federation of states, power is now highly centralized and federalized. I think this is evident in the passing of the No Child Left Behind Act. This was a federal legislation regarding education, a task traditionally left for the States to manage. In this case, mandates were placed regarding education. The federal government will withdraw their financial support from school systems that do not implement the changes required by NCLB. This is exacerbated by the fact that the high rate of federal income tax means that state governments do not have a high enough tax base that they can use to fund large initiatives without the help of the federal government. The net effect is a type of coersion that aptly illustrates Mills' point.
Mills also argues for a power elite that runs our country. I think that this power elite consists of the elected government officials as well as the large corporations and business men who support them and on whom officials rely for financial support for thie re-election campaigns. Campaign finance reform including greater accountability for funding sources, better methods of disemminating real campaign information at a low cost (i.e. subsidized, unbiased TV stations), and other reforms could help move our country from oligarchy to democracy!

Walmart

Walmart does not pay fair prices for the goods that it buys. This was obvious from the Frontline video's description of Rubbermaid's attempt to increase their prices, and Walmart's refusal. Walmart also doesn't provide fair wages or benefits to its employees, and has outsourced much of its manufacturing to foreign markets. Both low wages and outsourcing have undoubtedly hurt the US economy. Walmart, with its brilliant supply-chain management and ability to provide a great variety of goods at rock bottom prices, has successfully managed to shut down small town, local competitors in many areas where Walmart opens stores. These closings of community stores decrease community connections and make local economies go stagnant.

As I view Walmart so negatively, it is only self-contradiction that allows me to go there to make purchases from time to time. Recently, when I was moving to a new state and needed a mish-mash of different products, I went to Walmart so that I could buy all of these items in one place. In the hurried lives of working families, graduate students and young professionals, Walmart provides a quick and cheap way to get the things we need. I try to avoid Walamart as much as possible, but sometimes its just too tempting. I wish Walmart paid more respect to local economies and did not use foreign labor so much.

Division of House Chores

My chart showed a general trend indicating that my mother both did more chores around the house, and completed those tasks that were less flexible and required greater sacrifices of work hours. This result is in line with the findings discussed in the textbook.
Discussions of this topic have been heavily focused on the existance of inequalities and differences in the roles of men and women in the family. True, many women still express frustration that their spouses do not take on as many chores as they would like them to. On the other hand, anecdotally I have had many women tell me that they indeed enjoy caring for their families, and cooking dinner provides a way of connecting with their spouse and children. While inequality in this area does exist, I don't think complete "equality" is required in the sense that chores must be split in type and frequency exactly evenly. Perhaps the man and woman could split chores based on what one or the other prefers, and based on the hours worked outside the home and demands placed by the employer.

Religion and Society

Question: Is modern society secularizing? Why or why not?
My thoughts: Many people report, as described in our text, that they attended church as children but now no longer do so. This may lead one to conclude that modern society is secularizing. I do not think that modern society is secularizing. Rather, I would emphasize that membership in religious organizations has increased since the founding of the U.S. Religious affiliation has increased, though attendance at tradiational church services has decreased. This shows not greater secularism but greater individualism and perhaps greater pluralism in the practice of religion. People still seek religious experiences and fulfillment beyond the material world, but the tendency is now to look toward non-traditional and highly personalized methods of obtaining such experiences.

Question: What do you think is the appropriate role of religion in government?
My thoughts: I think that we should always respect the freedom of religion that is preserved in the Bill of Rights. This freedom of religion, however, is not challenged by simple expressions of theism, such as that found in the pledge of allegiance, that are part of our nation's historical context. In fact, freedom of religion does not mean that religion must be eliminated from public life and discussion. It only means that the individual is free to practice the religion of his or her choice!

A Tale of Two Families

As I reviewed the storyline presented in Tale of Two Families, I easily saw that my experience has been most like Max's rather than Byron's. My parents have enough net worth that they can afford to help me if I eve needed it, and were able to pay for my college education without any loans.

I think that these stories don't directly attest to the effect of race, but to the effect of wealth. Insomuch as there is a wealth gap between the races, however, my opportunities have been shaped by my racial/ethnic identity.

Why do sociologists separate sex and gender?

One of the most important requirement of science is that it is unbiased. Our textbook has described the need to look objectively at society and at sociological phenomena rather than being biased. Unfortunately, the sociological study of gender (or at least the study of gender as described in our textbook) seems to be biased even in the basic definitions on which the study is built.

According to our book, sociologists define sex as the physical differences of the body and gender as the cultural, social and psychological differences between men and women. It states that these definitions of sex and gender as separate entities are "fundamental" because "many differences betwen men and women are not biological."

This separation of sex and gender is not justified for several reasons. First, sex and gender are interrelated, a fact which I find indisputable for anyone who has a basic understanding of the biology of hormones. Hormones are biochemicals that affect our behavior, and serve to link the biology of men and women with how men and women behave. It is fact that higher testorterone levels, which are vastly more common in men, lead to more aggressive and dominant behavior. It's also a fact that hormones effect emotional wellbeing, and women's hormone levels vary over the course of a month while men's remain much more stable. I do not offer the discussion of hormones as "proof" of gender roles, but only as concrete examples of the link between biology and behavior.

Secondly, I think the definitive separation of sex and gender is inconsistent with our understanding of other concepts that also have biological influences. The fact of being human, for instance, entails biological, social, cultural and psychological differences between human and animals, but we do not separate the life of a human into "biology" and "everything else." In fact, sociologists, psychologists and other social scientists acknowledge that biology, society, culture and psychology interact and together can describe what it really means to be human.

If "human" can in one word describe biological, sociological, cultural, and phsychological differences between humans and animals, why can't one word describe biological, sociological, cultural and psychological differnces between men and women? To me it seems that by the very act of adopting these definitieons of sex and gender as absolutely distinct, sociologists are biasing their field toward the theory of the social construction of gender. Only within the context of this theory are gender and sex completely separated and gender seen solely as a product of societal and cultural influences.

This chapter was very disconcerting to read. I think that sociologists needs to seriously consider whether they are adopting these definitions because they are necessary or simply in order to facilitate arguments that support one theory over another without scientific basis.