I am terrified of where the world is going. Although I agree that advancements in technology have its advantages, especially in medicine, the fact that we are growing farther apart as a society, scares me. How can we encourage tolerance, understanding and peaceful coexistance when we don't even spend the time to get to know and understand our neighbors?
I'm really disappointed in the education system in most areas today. This year, especially, I have grown more aware of how little the schools actually expect from the students. My son coasted through this school year, and there are so many projects that I felt he should have put more work in, but when I would make suggestions on how he could make it better, he would respond with "the teacher didn't tell me I had to do that much" or something to that effect. It's very disappointing.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Monday, June 13, 2011
Urban/Suburban/Rural Life
Being a military "brat" at a very early age where I moved around with my parents, then enjoying my father's retirement years in a small rural town and now moving around with my husband who is a service member, I feel I've experienced a wide range of urbanization in the United States.
I have to agree that the closer you get to the bigger cities, the less likely people are to interact with each other, strangers that is, face to face. I've lived in this area for seven years and I still have a difficult time excusing what I feel is rudeness, when someone walks around me in an aisle in the store and doesn't say "excuse me" or "hi, how's it going?". In the less populated areas, everywhere I've lived, people will make more eye contact, smile more and even say small phrases like, "How's it going?" I wish it weren't this way. I think those who are trying to create space around them, in the more densely populated areas, are actually pushing people away.
I have to agree that the closer you get to the bigger cities, the less likely people are to interact with each other, strangers that is, face to face. I've lived in this area for seven years and I still have a difficult time excusing what I feel is rudeness, when someone walks around me in an aisle in the store and doesn't say "excuse me" or "hi, how's it going?". In the less populated areas, everywhere I've lived, people will make more eye contact, smile more and even say small phrases like, "How's it going?" I wish it weren't this way. I think those who are trying to create space around them, in the more densely populated areas, are actually pushing people away.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Who Has the Power?
There's several theories out there as far as who really rules in a democracy: the elites, the interest groups, the miltiary, or the people. In our complex society, I can certainly understand why all four theories could hold water. I hate to say it, but I think the power elite is more like what our government has turned into. According to C. Wright Mills, the power elite mainly consists of white protestant men who are from wealthy families. These men have had very similiar back grounds from the same prestigious college educations, to the same country clubs and fraternities, and the same government committees. As far as what they want, that too, is very similiar. Furthermore, according to Mills, the people really do not have that much power over what can happen. We see it all the time, the wealthy business leaders contribute to the campaign funds or to the interest groups, and those running for elected office take that money and then work towards the interest of those who pay the most for the campaign.
I by no means think that's the end all of how it works. I have personally seen how the little people can make change if they are consistent. And so I do encourage everyone to try to be involved and to vote. But as for what I agree with the most, would be the power elite theory.
I by no means think that's the end all of how it works. I have personally seen how the little people can make change if they are consistent. And so I do encourage everyone to try to be involved and to vote. But as for what I agree with the most, would be the power elite theory.
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Is Wal-Mart Good for America?
I think this questions is similiar to the age-old questions, "What came first the chicken or the egg?" The reason why I say this is because Wal-mart's ways have caused our country to spiral down into a lesser level of living. Wal-mart buys nearly 80% of it's items from overseas, mainly China, because the merchandise from overseas suppliers, when sold here in the US yields a profit of anywhere from 50-80% on average where items that are manufactured here in the States, only yields a profit of about 18-20%. With that kind of profit, who can blame Wal-mart! But we also have to look at the jobs that the overseas suppliers are replacing. Many US suppliers have been shut down which has resulted in thousands of job lay-offs in the US. In order to make such a big profit for the share holders of Wal-mart, Wal-mart pays it's employees nearly half what the US manufacturer's paid and offered even less benefits such as pensions and health insurance. As a result, those very people who are paying less for cheap merchandise from overseas suppliers through Wal-mart, are also earning considerably less than they would if they could work for US-ran companies that make the merchandise that is being basically bought out by overseas cheap labor.
I wouldn't say Wal-mart is bad for this country. But it certainly has cause a ripple effect that I don't think Sam Walton anticipated.
I wouldn't say Wal-mart is bad for this country. But it certainly has cause a ripple effect that I don't think Sam Walton anticipated.
Monday, May 23, 2011
Domestic Division of Labor
I do believe there is certainly a problem with women having a "second shift" in this world. I see it all the time. I grew up with it. When my father came home from work, he's sit down and watch tv. My mother would have dinner just about done, and then we'd all sit down to eat. After dinner, dad would go watch tv and mother was left to clean up.
On the other hand, I'm a very very lucky woman. I knew this prior to filling out the task chart for this section, but I can honestly say that the division of labor, despite the fact that my husband works full time and I'm a stay-at-home-mom, is pretty equal. Of the listed tasks, many of them (14), my husband and I work together on: sometimes working side by side, other times taking turns. There were fifteen tasks listed that I do solely, or almost solely. And there were five tasks that my husband does solely, or almost solely. Grant it, when my husband is deployed or on TDY, I do everything on the list either by myself or with the help of my children. But I filled out the chart as if my husband was home.
I certainly think this is why we've been married longer than most of our friends and why I can say that after fourteen years of marriage I am looking forward to the next fourteen. A fair division of labor between wife and husband means less resentment and more time for both spouses to have "down" time or "veg" time.
On the other hand, I'm a very very lucky woman. I knew this prior to filling out the task chart for this section, but I can honestly say that the division of labor, despite the fact that my husband works full time and I'm a stay-at-home-mom, is pretty equal. Of the listed tasks, many of them (14), my husband and I work together on: sometimes working side by side, other times taking turns. There were fifteen tasks listed that I do solely, or almost solely. And there were five tasks that my husband does solely, or almost solely. Grant it, when my husband is deployed or on TDY, I do everything on the list either by myself or with the help of my children. But I filled out the chart as if my husband was home.
I certainly think this is why we've been married longer than most of our friends and why I can say that after fourteen years of marriage I am looking forward to the next fourteen. A fair division of labor between wife and husband means less resentment and more time for both spouses to have "down" time or "veg" time.
Religion Pt 2: Religion's Role in Government
The role of religion in government is a very touchy subject. Our forefathers wanted a separation of church and state for the reason that when Britian was controlling them, they had no say in how they could worship. Today though, separation of church and state means something completely different, and too many people are trying to take it too far, and for what? I see a breakdown of morals in our society.
Our country was based off religious freedom, among other freedoms of course. But it doesn't mean that religion, or more appropriately a moral foundation based off religion, shouldn't be a cornerstone of our society.
I'm not saying we need to go back to when the Church ruled over every aspect. The contrary, because history has shown that with that much power, even the Church grew corrupt. We certainly need the balance of power that our government has put in place. But Religion offers a moral compass for society, of which there is compelling argument that we as a society have started to loose.
Our country was based off religious freedom, among other freedoms of course. But it doesn't mean that religion, or more appropriately a moral foundation based off religion, shouldn't be a cornerstone of our society.
I'm not saying we need to go back to when the Church ruled over every aspect. The contrary, because history has shown that with that much power, even the Church grew corrupt. We certainly need the balance of power that our government has put in place. But Religion offers a moral compass for society, of which there is compelling argument that we as a society have started to loose.
Religion Pt 1: Secularization
Several people in the past, such as Karl Marx, have predicted that as modernization spread that religious secularization would occur. I certainly think there is enough evidence to say beyond a doubt that secularization is occuring in society.
Look at the push for taking anything religous out of our country's symbols: the dollar bill, the pledge of allegiance, etc. Religion just does not have as much power in the majority of the societies in this world, but especially in the developed countries where technology and science has grown.
Look at the push for taking anything religous out of our country's symbols: the dollar bill, the pledge of allegiance, etc. Religion just does not have as much power in the majority of the societies in this world, but especially in the developed countries where technology and science has grown.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Race
In a Tale of Two Families, the reader is exposed to the differences between growing up black and growig up white in the United States. Unfortunately, I'm not surprised by the results. It's unfortunate, but ethnic conflict and stratification is ingrained in us. We saw from the results of the self-tests earlier in the week that as a society we tend to unconciously favor white to black. I think we just need to all try to make a more concious effort to be fair and tolerant of everyone, no matter where they come from.
Monday, May 9, 2011
Socializing Gender
Gender is certainly something that is taught (nurture). But I think as much as parents would like to influence their boys to do boy activities and girls to do girl activities, or even keeping activities as gender neutral as possible, the outside world gets in the way. Take my idea to keep my kids away from guns (play) and violence. I soon had to let that one go because, perhaps because we are part of the military community, no matter where my kids went, other boys were playing with toy guns. TV and school, alike, either reinterate or undo what parents teach their children.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Global Inequality: Why Care?
Critics and proponents of globalization are waging a fierce debate over the effects of globalization on inequality. Are the world's rich and world's poor growing closer together or farther apart? Why should we care either way?
Proponents claim that globalization has brought the world together on a level playing field, while critics contend that globalization has created an unequal world. I think these statements are too general to be accurate.
It is very clear, however, that current global inequality levels, whether they have been moving up or down, stand very high. Inequality of income is as severe in global society as it is in any particular country in the world. If we envision the whole world as one society, which is precisely what globalization encourages us to do, we would see that economic inequality among the world population is greater than it is within these countries marked by economic disparity and social fractures.
The statistical debates about trends and causes of global inequality remain crucially important. We need to understand the changes in national and international economic systems that together comprise the process of globalization and their relationship to the widening or narrowing of global inequalities. The examinations of social scientists working on these issues must carefully break down the processes in order to isolate the various relevant factors, such as technological changes, population changes, climate changes, knowledge/educational changes, changes in tariffs and other barriers to trade, and movement in exchange rates.
The basic claim that humans are social beings brings us to theheart of how and why inequalities matter, morally especially. Dollars are an abstraction, albeit a fundamental one for survivial in today's economy. It is the impact of those dollars on one's everyday activities and perceptions of self and the world that really matter. We are more concerned with the intrinsic components of well-being than with dollars or automobiles. Are persons able to meet their basic and more complex human needs? Are they able to participate in their own society? Do they have the freedoms and capacities to express themselves culturally, politically, and religiously? These are questions of fundamental human well-being.
Proponents claim that globalization has brought the world together on a level playing field, while critics contend that globalization has created an unequal world. I think these statements are too general to be accurate.
It is very clear, however, that current global inequality levels, whether they have been moving up or down, stand very high. Inequality of income is as severe in global society as it is in any particular country in the world. If we envision the whole world as one society, which is precisely what globalization encourages us to do, we would see that economic inequality among the world population is greater than it is within these countries marked by economic disparity and social fractures.
The statistical debates about trends and causes of global inequality remain crucially important. We need to understand the changes in national and international economic systems that together comprise the process of globalization and their relationship to the widening or narrowing of global inequalities. The examinations of social scientists working on these issues must carefully break down the processes in order to isolate the various relevant factors, such as technological changes, population changes, climate changes, knowledge/educational changes, changes in tariffs and other barriers to trade, and movement in exchange rates.
The basic claim that humans are social beings brings us to theheart of how and why inequalities matter, morally especially. Dollars are an abstraction, albeit a fundamental one for survivial in today's economy. It is the impact of those dollars on one's everyday activities and perceptions of self and the world that really matter. We are more concerned with the intrinsic components of well-being than with dollars or automobiles. Are persons able to meet their basic and more complex human needs? Are they able to participate in their own society? Do they have the freedoms and capacities to express themselves culturally, politically, and religiously? These are questions of fundamental human well-being.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Class Stratification in the US
"Mom, can we go shopping this weekend?" my daughter asked me out of the blue one day.
"Kiddo, I just bought you new clothes for school, not long ago. What's wrong with those?" I inquired.
"I want nice clothes like (friends' name here). They are more fashionable than my clothes."
Since then, we've had several conversations about the differences between her friend's family and ours. Although, her friend's father is of the same rank as my husband, her friend's mother has remarried and she lives with her mother and stepfather most of the year. Her friend is also an only child, and my daughter is the oldest of three children. In her friend's home, there are just more resources available, a concept that my twelve year old daughter isn't ready to accept.
I remember when I was younger, my fellow classmates took part in similiar class races, like this one. I watched as some of the kids around me wanted the same shoes as a celebrity or the most popular kid in school. From time to time, although rarely fortunately, I was told that I needed to "upgrade" my clothes. I didn't care. My clothes were not worn or faded, I looked nice in them, and although might not have been designer, weren't "rags" like some would have me believe.
Even now as adults, we engage in seemingly silly competition with our neighbors. As embarrassed as I am to admit this, a few weeks back when I heard that one of my neighbors had a 72" flatscreen, suddenly my 60" flatscreen, that was fairly new seemed mediocre. At the time I couldn't understand why that little green monster was rearing his ugly head. Afterall, we don't have the furniture to accomodate a bigger television.
These are just personal examples of how there are still class stratification in our society. Children, unfortunately, are taught from an early age that if they do not have the newest fads, then they won't be welcome in the "in" crowds. And it doesn't stop there, "keeping up with the Jones's" is not just a phrase. But it's evident on a much larger scale as well.
The recent federal budget issue was a very clear example of how the classes are separated in this country, and personally, the way the possible government shut down played out, angered many of my associates. It was obvious that those on capital hill, who certainly live a lifestyle indicative of a higher class, have no idea what it is like for those of us who would be classified as lower middle class and working class. Holding the military's pay hostage in order to force an agenda to be passed is simply unforgivable. Withholding the pay of people who live from paycheck to paycheck, who make their bills, but with very little discretionary funds left over, if any, while those on capital hill, who enjoy the lifestyle of the upper middle class or higher, do not have their pay or livelihood jeopardized.
There's even a class separation in the military; between the enlisted and the officers. For good reasons, there is no fraternization between these two groups. Afterall, the integrity of the mission is always first priority. But, the officers have historically had larger, nicer homes; a larger, nicer place to gather (the officer's club); wives of officers were expected to carry themselves differently, with more "class", than enlisted wives.
But then you look around the community off post, and even the lowest ranking in the military realize that they are not the lowest class. The Route 1 corridor has long been known as the seedier part of the area, particularly around post. The minute you go out one of the gates onto Rt 1, especially the main Tulley gate, you see the kinds of living conditions that the lower class and poor live in. In any given day you will see atleast one or two homeless men walking along the roads outside post.
There is obviously a class structure in our country, and unfortunately often times the higher classes do not look fondly upon those in lower classes.
"Kiddo, I just bought you new clothes for school, not long ago. What's wrong with those?" I inquired.
"I want nice clothes like (friends' name here). They are more fashionable than my clothes."
Since then, we've had several conversations about the differences between her friend's family and ours. Although, her friend's father is of the same rank as my husband, her friend's mother has remarried and she lives with her mother and stepfather most of the year. Her friend is also an only child, and my daughter is the oldest of three children. In her friend's home, there are just more resources available, a concept that my twelve year old daughter isn't ready to accept.
I remember when I was younger, my fellow classmates took part in similiar class races, like this one. I watched as some of the kids around me wanted the same shoes as a celebrity or the most popular kid in school. From time to time, although rarely fortunately, I was told that I needed to "upgrade" my clothes. I didn't care. My clothes were not worn or faded, I looked nice in them, and although might not have been designer, weren't "rags" like some would have me believe.
Even now as adults, we engage in seemingly silly competition with our neighbors. As embarrassed as I am to admit this, a few weeks back when I heard that one of my neighbors had a 72" flatscreen, suddenly my 60" flatscreen, that was fairly new seemed mediocre. At the time I couldn't understand why that little green monster was rearing his ugly head. Afterall, we don't have the furniture to accomodate a bigger television.
These are just personal examples of how there are still class stratification in our society. Children, unfortunately, are taught from an early age that if they do not have the newest fads, then they won't be welcome in the "in" crowds. And it doesn't stop there, "keeping up with the Jones's" is not just a phrase. But it's evident on a much larger scale as well.
The recent federal budget issue was a very clear example of how the classes are separated in this country, and personally, the way the possible government shut down played out, angered many of my associates. It was obvious that those on capital hill, who certainly live a lifestyle indicative of a higher class, have no idea what it is like for those of us who would be classified as lower middle class and working class. Holding the military's pay hostage in order to force an agenda to be passed is simply unforgivable. Withholding the pay of people who live from paycheck to paycheck, who make their bills, but with very little discretionary funds left over, if any, while those on capital hill, who enjoy the lifestyle of the upper middle class or higher, do not have their pay or livelihood jeopardized.
There's even a class separation in the military; between the enlisted and the officers. For good reasons, there is no fraternization between these two groups. Afterall, the integrity of the mission is always first priority. But, the officers have historically had larger, nicer homes; a larger, nicer place to gather (the officer's club); wives of officers were expected to carry themselves differently, with more "class", than enlisted wives.
But then you look around the community off post, and even the lowest ranking in the military realize that they are not the lowest class. The Route 1 corridor has long been known as the seedier part of the area, particularly around post. The minute you go out one of the gates onto Rt 1, especially the main Tulley gate, you see the kinds of living conditions that the lower class and poor live in. In any given day you will see atleast one or two homeless men walking along the roads outside post.
There is obviously a class structure in our country, and unfortunately often times the higher classes do not look fondly upon those in lower classes.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Drawbacks to Technology?
The past twenty years has brought about an influx of new ways to expand our social networks, particularly through the internet. We can now gain information and communicate with our loved ones from afar quicker than ever before. But with the new age of dating networks like Match.com, social networks like Facebook, not to mention online shopping, what damage, if any, is being done to our society?
I think we certainly should be concerned about WHO we are talking to and how far we go. The Craiglist killer is a recent and perfect example of the dangers of not truly knowing what kind of person is on the other side of the screen. Also, more and more prospective employeers and universities are looking at what an individual posts online, and making decisions on whether to hire or fire. More and more people are putting more personal information out there for the world to have access to, myself included, and it is certainly something that many people should be cautious about.
But there are so many advantages to having social networking via internet. As long as we are smart and careful, the world has literally opened up to us, whereas the generations before us did not have that. We've been talking about the importance of globalization and common markets worldwide, as well as higher tolerance and understanding of differing cultures and societies in order to stamp out prejudice. The internet gives us the means necessary to do this.
I think the concern is making sure younger people know how to use the resources now available to us, wisely and safely. Afterall, we are social animals. The majority of us are still going to seek the face to face company from our "primary groups".
I think we certainly should be concerned about WHO we are talking to and how far we go. The Craiglist killer is a recent and perfect example of the dangers of not truly knowing what kind of person is on the other side of the screen. Also, more and more prospective employeers and universities are looking at what an individual posts online, and making decisions on whether to hire or fire. More and more people are putting more personal information out there for the world to have access to, myself included, and it is certainly something that many people should be cautious about.
But there are so many advantages to having social networking via internet. As long as we are smart and careful, the world has literally opened up to us, whereas the generations before us did not have that. We've been talking about the importance of globalization and common markets worldwide, as well as higher tolerance and understanding of differing cultures and societies in order to stamp out prejudice. The internet gives us the means necessary to do this.
I think the concern is making sure younger people know how to use the resources now available to us, wisely and safely. Afterall, we are social animals. The majority of us are still going to seek the face to face company from our "primary groups".
Sunday, April 10, 2011
The Criminal Justice System
There is a problem with the justice system today, we all know this. The prisons are over crowded, but yet only a fraction of known crimes end in arrest and conviction. Meanwhile, the price to house and feed the criminals who are imprisoned is enormous, totally nearly $25.5K a year per inmate. So what can we do about it? There are several proposals out there.
The first thing that comes to mind is that many deviants do not believe that anything will happen. They think they are either smarter than the law enforcement agencies and will not get caught, or have a belief that if they are caught, they will get the minimal punishment and be free soon after. I think this starts at an early age, honestly. As a mother of three young children, I see it everyday. The school systems and even daycares are not allowed to punish our children.
The most recent example that I can think of is one of my friend's preschoolers. The teachers at the preschool are not allowed to punish the child when he misbehaves, and instead must call the parents. Obviously the parents need to be involved in the process, but the fact that the child knows nothing will happen to him while he's in the classroom is not helping his behavior. He spends the majority of his time in the school. Once he gets home, it's dinner, bath and bed due to the parent's work schedule. This hasn't changed from before the child started preschool, so where's the consequence for his behavior in the classroom? Calling dad at work? What's dad going to do at that time?
I'm not saying abuse the children, by no means. But our society has gone so far to the extreme as far as protecting our children's psychie that we are raising children who do not know responsibility and accountability for their own actions. And then we wonder why those same children, as adults, act the same way? Children need to understand that if they do something that is against the established rules there will be a consequence because they are expected to behave within the limits of the rules.
This will take time to fix. We didn't go from spanking our children to "sparring the rod and spoiling the child" overnight, and so we can't move to the happy medium over night either. So meanwhile, what do we do with those individuals who have committed crimes? I'm not against prison. Yes, it is expensive, so how can we fix that?
First of all, harsher consequences for murderers and rapists. I'm not against an "eye for an eye" as far as this goes. I think that all murderers should have the death penalty. And they shouldn't necessarily be on death row for years and years. Let's only give them one appeal, and give them a time limit on that. Once they have lost their appeal, because they are obviously guilty, within a week or two, after they have had a chance to say their goodbyes to their loved ones, instigate that death penalty.
Secondly, for those who are doing a shorter term in prison, and will eventually be out, make them pay a portion of their "room and board" back once they are out. This proposal is problematic because many released convicts do not acclimate back into society as productive citizens quickly. But once an ex-con does establish him/herself with a job, garnish a portion of his wages to pay back some of the expenses. Afterall, we've already established that the worst criminals should not get free room and board, and should have the death penalty. Why should the "lesser" crimes have it "easy"? What about those who do not acclimate? If the ex-con hasn't become employed in society after a given amount of time, perhaps a year, then what about employing them in the prison system? Instead of paying a salary to the food service personnel or the janitorial service, have ex-cons who cannot find a job on the outside do those jobs, perhaps even at a cut rate, but at the least garnish the wages to pay back some of what was spent on them while they were imprisoned.
The first thing that comes to mind is that many deviants do not believe that anything will happen. They think they are either smarter than the law enforcement agencies and will not get caught, or have a belief that if they are caught, they will get the minimal punishment and be free soon after. I think this starts at an early age, honestly. As a mother of three young children, I see it everyday. The school systems and even daycares are not allowed to punish our children.
The most recent example that I can think of is one of my friend's preschoolers. The teachers at the preschool are not allowed to punish the child when he misbehaves, and instead must call the parents. Obviously the parents need to be involved in the process, but the fact that the child knows nothing will happen to him while he's in the classroom is not helping his behavior. He spends the majority of his time in the school. Once he gets home, it's dinner, bath and bed due to the parent's work schedule. This hasn't changed from before the child started preschool, so where's the consequence for his behavior in the classroom? Calling dad at work? What's dad going to do at that time?
I'm not saying abuse the children, by no means. But our society has gone so far to the extreme as far as protecting our children's psychie that we are raising children who do not know responsibility and accountability for their own actions. And then we wonder why those same children, as adults, act the same way? Children need to understand that if they do something that is against the established rules there will be a consequence because they are expected to behave within the limits of the rules.
This will take time to fix. We didn't go from spanking our children to "sparring the rod and spoiling the child" overnight, and so we can't move to the happy medium over night either. So meanwhile, what do we do with those individuals who have committed crimes? I'm not against prison. Yes, it is expensive, so how can we fix that?
First of all, harsher consequences for murderers and rapists. I'm not against an "eye for an eye" as far as this goes. I think that all murderers should have the death penalty. And they shouldn't necessarily be on death row for years and years. Let's only give them one appeal, and give them a time limit on that. Once they have lost their appeal, because they are obviously guilty, within a week or two, after they have had a chance to say their goodbyes to their loved ones, instigate that death penalty.
Secondly, for those who are doing a shorter term in prison, and will eventually be out, make them pay a portion of their "room and board" back once they are out. This proposal is problematic because many released convicts do not acclimate back into society as productive citizens quickly. But once an ex-con does establish him/herself with a job, garnish a portion of his wages to pay back some of the expenses. Afterall, we've already established that the worst criminals should not get free room and board, and should have the death penalty. Why should the "lesser" crimes have it "easy"? What about those who do not acclimate? If the ex-con hasn't become employed in society after a given amount of time, perhaps a year, then what about employing them in the prison system? Instead of paying a salary to the food service personnel or the janitorial service, have ex-cons who cannot find a job on the outside do those jobs, perhaps even at a cut rate, but at the least garnish the wages to pay back some of what was spent on them while they were imprisoned.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Nature vs Nurture
I used to be an avid proponent for the "nurture" side of things. I felt that if I child chronically misbehaved, it must fall on the parents', not teaching them properly or perhaps modelling inappropriately. I felt that the environment created the person we all grow to become.
However, I'm older now. I've been around the block a few times, I'm a parent of three children and I've watched other children and their parents interact as well. This is also not my first soft science course. Over the past year, I've taken three other psychology courses and now I'm in this sociology course. And although I wouldn't say those courses or my experience has made me completely change my mind and go to the other side of the spectrum and argue "nature", I can certainly see why those who are adamant about nature having a stronger influence would feel that way.
My first experience that I can think of, that caused me to re-evaluate my position was my senior year in highschool. One of my best friends, who had been brought up in a very strict Christian home and taught his whole life that homosexuality was sinful and wrong, was experiencing the most difficult struggle of his life. As much as he wanted to be interested in girls, as much as he wanted to be heterosexual, he felt that his urges, natural urges were stearing him down another path. The inner conflict and turmoil that he felt between his "head" and his "heart" was tearing him apart, and as much as I tried, I couldn't help him find that inner peace. I saw first hand that there is a possibility that our sexuality might be genetically based. Fortunately my friend has come to terms with his sexuality and he is happy with his life decisions now. My suspicions that sexuality might be more genetic than environment was further confirmed in one of my psychology classes this past year, when it was discussed that there is actual research now with twins that points to the possibility that being "gay" might be predetermined.
Another reason why I think nature has a bigger influence is my own children and their dispositions. Both my husband and I are quiet, respectful people. We've always been the "good" kids that followed the rules and were rarely in trouble. However, my husband's siblings aren't all like that, and in fact a couple of them are very much "trouble-makers". When are children were younger, they were very good children. They were polite, respectful. I could take them anywhere with no fear of them misbehaving. Both my husband and I employ an active, authoritative parenting style where mutual respect is expected. But as my daughter grows older, some of her actions I just do not understand at all. It scares me, but her actions and beliefs remind me of one of my husband's siblings--whom she has never had contact with.
I, like many things in my life, tend to "side" with the middle man on the nature vs nurture debate. I think we all have genetically predisposed characteristics and many of those can be brought out or subdued by our environment.
I think this makes sense from a scientific point of view as well. Take some of the more common diseases for example and how the environment can affect them. Take shingles. The virus, similiar to the chicken pox virus, can lay dormant in our nervous system of years, decades even. But it only takes an environmental factor, such as extreme stress, to make that virus "wake up" and next thing we know we have the symptoms of the disease and are left wondering where we could have possibly came into contact with it.
From more of a psychological perspective, someone who is less genetically prone to depression, but is having a very rough time in life, may fair better than someone who is prone to depression. In human development and even some parenting classes, we are told that our children are born with different temperaments, but how we react ("goodness of fit") to those temperaments will determine how well the interactions between ourselves and children will work out. This is an example of now nature and nurture interact. Just because we have a "difficult" child does not mean that raising that child will be "difficult". As parents we have to adjust how we react and interact so that the family unit can remain optimally functional.
I think that nature certainly has a lot to say with human behavior. But how the environment interacts with nature is equally important.
However, I'm older now. I've been around the block a few times, I'm a parent of three children and I've watched other children and their parents interact as well. This is also not my first soft science course. Over the past year, I've taken three other psychology courses and now I'm in this sociology course. And although I wouldn't say those courses or my experience has made me completely change my mind and go to the other side of the spectrum and argue "nature", I can certainly see why those who are adamant about nature having a stronger influence would feel that way.
My first experience that I can think of, that caused me to re-evaluate my position was my senior year in highschool. One of my best friends, who had been brought up in a very strict Christian home and taught his whole life that homosexuality was sinful and wrong, was experiencing the most difficult struggle of his life. As much as he wanted to be interested in girls, as much as he wanted to be heterosexual, he felt that his urges, natural urges were stearing him down another path. The inner conflict and turmoil that he felt between his "head" and his "heart" was tearing him apart, and as much as I tried, I couldn't help him find that inner peace. I saw first hand that there is a possibility that our sexuality might be genetically based. Fortunately my friend has come to terms with his sexuality and he is happy with his life decisions now. My suspicions that sexuality might be more genetic than environment was further confirmed in one of my psychology classes this past year, when it was discussed that there is actual research now with twins that points to the possibility that being "gay" might be predetermined.
Another reason why I think nature has a bigger influence is my own children and their dispositions. Both my husband and I are quiet, respectful people. We've always been the "good" kids that followed the rules and were rarely in trouble. However, my husband's siblings aren't all like that, and in fact a couple of them are very much "trouble-makers". When are children were younger, they were very good children. They were polite, respectful. I could take them anywhere with no fear of them misbehaving. Both my husband and I employ an active, authoritative parenting style where mutual respect is expected. But as my daughter grows older, some of her actions I just do not understand at all. It scares me, but her actions and beliefs remind me of one of my husband's siblings--whom she has never had contact with.
I, like many things in my life, tend to "side" with the middle man on the nature vs nurture debate. I think we all have genetically predisposed characteristics and many of those can be brought out or subdued by our environment.
I think this makes sense from a scientific point of view as well. Take some of the more common diseases for example and how the environment can affect them. Take shingles. The virus, similiar to the chicken pox virus, can lay dormant in our nervous system of years, decades even. But it only takes an environmental factor, such as extreme stress, to make that virus "wake up" and next thing we know we have the symptoms of the disease and are left wondering where we could have possibly came into contact with it.
From more of a psychological perspective, someone who is less genetically prone to depression, but is having a very rough time in life, may fair better than someone who is prone to depression. In human development and even some parenting classes, we are told that our children are born with different temperaments, but how we react ("goodness of fit") to those temperaments will determine how well the interactions between ourselves and children will work out. This is an example of now nature and nurture interact. Just because we have a "difficult" child does not mean that raising that child will be "difficult". As parents we have to adjust how we react and interact so that the family unit can remain optimally functional.
I think that nature certainly has a lot to say with human behavior. But how the environment interacts with nature is equally important.
Monday, March 21, 2011
BBC's portrayal of America
Hugh Laurie on BBC
My first impression when I first watched this was that I felt offended. But I couldn't put my finger on why I was offended, at first. I watched it a couple more times. That's when I realized that BBC was portraying Americans as self-absorbed and underdressed. By the gentleman at the end coming in in a suite, it only pushes that sentiment even further.
I come from a very patriotic and proud family. It pains me to think that other countries see our country like that. I blame the people in this country who do not appreciate what this country has to offer and feels that they are owed something for this, and I wish that other countries would realize that that's only a small part of our population.
My first impression when I first watched this was that I felt offended. But I couldn't put my finger on why I was offended, at first. I watched it a couple more times. That's when I realized that BBC was portraying Americans as self-absorbed and underdressed. By the gentleman at the end coming in in a suite, it only pushes that sentiment even further.
I come from a very patriotic and proud family. It pains me to think that other countries see our country like that. I blame the people in this country who do not appreciate what this country has to offer and feels that they are owed something for this, and I wish that other countries would realize that that's only a small part of our population.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Ethical Sociological Experimentation
Experimentation is a key part of scientific process. But in the psychological and sociological sciences, where human beings are often the "guinea pigs", it is important to always ensure that the steps towards scientific discovery are ethical. But what does this mean?
The three things that all scientists should keep in mind are: 1) obtain the informed consent of the participants, 2) protect them from harm and discomfort, and 3) treat information about individual participation confidentially. But how easy is it to follow these three guidelines? Because human behavior and reactions are difficult to predict due to our wide variations, it is not always easy to predict what may happen during a sociological experimentation. We saw this in the 1970s Stanford Prison Experiment.
The participants in the Stanford Prison Experiment certainly were harmed, not only psychologically but also in other negative aspects. That, I do not believe is the question. The question is, was the experiment unethical? In the video clip, it is said the results surprised everyone, including Dr. Zimbardo. This tells me that prior to the actual experiment, not all possible outcomes were or could have been predicted, and we can assume that it was not developed with the intent to put the participants into harms way, in any way. Furthermore, the experiment was originally intended to last two weeks, but was terminated after just six days, once the participant's well-being had been jeopardized.
In conclusion, the experiment, since it was presumably the first of it's kind, was not an unethical experiement for it's time. The outcomes were not predicted and surprised everyone, but once it was established that the wellbeing of the participants were being jeopardized the experiement was ended, keeping the participant's best interest in mind. However, to duplicate this experiment, as is often done in science in hopes to duplicate results, would possibly be unethical, since it is evident now that participants could possibly be harmed.
The three things that all scientists should keep in mind are: 1) obtain the informed consent of the participants, 2) protect them from harm and discomfort, and 3) treat information about individual participation confidentially. But how easy is it to follow these three guidelines? Because human behavior and reactions are difficult to predict due to our wide variations, it is not always easy to predict what may happen during a sociological experimentation. We saw this in the 1970s Stanford Prison Experiment.
The participants in the Stanford Prison Experiment certainly were harmed, not only psychologically but also in other negative aspects. That, I do not believe is the question. The question is, was the experiment unethical? In the video clip, it is said the results surprised everyone, including Dr. Zimbardo. This tells me that prior to the actual experiment, not all possible outcomes were or could have been predicted, and we can assume that it was not developed with the intent to put the participants into harms way, in any way. Furthermore, the experiment was originally intended to last two weeks, but was terminated after just six days, once the participant's well-being had been jeopardized.
In conclusion, the experiment, since it was presumably the first of it's kind, was not an unethical experiement for it's time. The outcomes were not predicted and surprised everyone, but once it was established that the wellbeing of the participants were being jeopardized the experiement was ended, keeping the participant's best interest in mind. However, to duplicate this experiment, as is often done in science in hopes to duplicate results, would possibly be unethical, since it is evident now that participants could possibly be harmed.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Week 1: Personal Introductions
My name is Erika Michelle Richards, but everyone just calls me Michelle. Well, not everyone. Some call me mommy. But that's jumping the gun just a bit, so let me start at the beginning.
I was born in El Paso, Texas. I grew up mostly in Roswell, New Mexico, before it was ruined by all the alien/tourist propaganda. I have more colorful words to describe it, but propaganda works for the purpose of this blog. We moved around alittle bit during my early years, because after my father retired from the US Army (signal corp), he got a job as a journeyman electrician for the FAA. However, once he retired from that job, my family moved to eastern Texas--Texarkana to be exact, and that's where I call home, now.
I went to college after highschool and earned my A.S. in Chemistry from Texas A&M-Texarkana. And that's when I met my husband. He was not in college at the time, but I worked part time in a bookstore to make extra money while going to school. He came into the store one day, we spoke about books and coffeeshops for a while, and next thing I knew, we were dating. At the time, he was waiting for a waiver from the Surgeon General to come through so that he could join the military. Prior to him joining, we got married, and then he shipped out shortly after that for his training. I used that time to concentrate on school and finish.
Once I finished school and joined him at his first duty station, Fort Bragg, NC, my life was transformed into a whirlwind of fulltime wife and mother---after our first born child was born. I spent the next twelve years being a very dedicated Army Wife and stay-at-home-mom. We had a few moves during that time, too, which is to be expected with the military life. But overall, I was happy.
Our third child, was born with many medical problems. And our life has been one big rollercoaster dealing with his needs and still trying to meet the demands of the military and two other children. But last spring I decided I wanted to go back to school. And so here I am, taking my twelfth or so class through NOVA. I working towards a BA in psychology, and will eventually earn my MA in Applied Behaviorial Analysis. ABA's work with mostly autistic children, and after a very long journey with my youngest son, that is what I've decided I want to do.
Meanwhile, due to military obligations, I'm in my second consequetive year of my husband being gone. So I've been doing this without much help. It hasn't been easy. Many times, I find myself staying up all night completing homework for my school because the day was filled with doctor appointments, therapies, tae kwon do, piano lessons, etc. Afterall, my children's needs do not stop just because I've gone back to school.
As a result of my very full plate of responsibilities, and basically single parenting it, most of my "hobbies" have been put on hold for a while. If, on the rare occasion, I can grab a few minutes to myself, I like to sit down and watch a movie, or atleast parts of it and enjoy a cold mountain dew, or if my kids have gone to bed, maybe a glass of wine. I'm not that big of a drinker, though, so it's usually a mt dew.
So there you have it. I'm a mom of three beautiful children, wife of a dedicated soldier (who, luckily, is also just as dedicated to his wife and children), trying to do the best I can by my family while still continuing to improve myself.
I was born in El Paso, Texas. I grew up mostly in Roswell, New Mexico, before it was ruined by all the alien/tourist propaganda. I have more colorful words to describe it, but propaganda works for the purpose of this blog. We moved around alittle bit during my early years, because after my father retired from the US Army (signal corp), he got a job as a journeyman electrician for the FAA. However, once he retired from that job, my family moved to eastern Texas--Texarkana to be exact, and that's where I call home, now.
I went to college after highschool and earned my A.S. in Chemistry from Texas A&M-Texarkana. And that's when I met my husband. He was not in college at the time, but I worked part time in a bookstore to make extra money while going to school. He came into the store one day, we spoke about books and coffeeshops for a while, and next thing I knew, we were dating. At the time, he was waiting for a waiver from the Surgeon General to come through so that he could join the military. Prior to him joining, we got married, and then he shipped out shortly after that for his training. I used that time to concentrate on school and finish.
Once I finished school and joined him at his first duty station, Fort Bragg, NC, my life was transformed into a whirlwind of fulltime wife and mother---after our first born child was born. I spent the next twelve years being a very dedicated Army Wife and stay-at-home-mom. We had a few moves during that time, too, which is to be expected with the military life. But overall, I was happy.
Our third child, was born with many medical problems. And our life has been one big rollercoaster dealing with his needs and still trying to meet the demands of the military and two other children. But last spring I decided I wanted to go back to school. And so here I am, taking my twelfth or so class through NOVA. I working towards a BA in psychology, and will eventually earn my MA in Applied Behaviorial Analysis. ABA's work with mostly autistic children, and after a very long journey with my youngest son, that is what I've decided I want to do.
Meanwhile, due to military obligations, I'm in my second consequetive year of my husband being gone. So I've been doing this without much help. It hasn't been easy. Many times, I find myself staying up all night completing homework for my school because the day was filled with doctor appointments, therapies, tae kwon do, piano lessons, etc. Afterall, my children's needs do not stop just because I've gone back to school.
As a result of my very full plate of responsibilities, and basically single parenting it, most of my "hobbies" have been put on hold for a while. If, on the rare occasion, I can grab a few minutes to myself, I like to sit down and watch a movie, or atleast parts of it and enjoy a cold mountain dew, or if my kids have gone to bed, maybe a glass of wine. I'm not that big of a drinker, though, so it's usually a mt dew.
So there you have it. I'm a mom of three beautiful children, wife of a dedicated soldier (who, luckily, is also just as dedicated to his wife and children), trying to do the best I can by my family while still continuing to improve myself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)