Reading Reflection #7

"There is some concern that if the movement to legalize same-sex marriage is effective it will reinforce the idea that the only legitimate intimate relationship is marriage and therefore may actually limit the diversity of "acceptable" relationships rather than expand it"
-Identities and Inequalites: Inequalities in the Law and Justice

This concept that Newman presents in Chapter 7 is one that I am not very familiar with. I have always been someone who thought they believed in gay marriage however that is the extend into which I have delved into this issue. This chapter brought up several interesting arguments as to what way legalizing gay marriage could go. I understand, as the chapter discusses, that some gays askew marriage because they view it as an "oppressive system" (238) as have some heterosexual couples. I have always thought that heterosexual people took marriage for granted however and that it should be available to everyone. I had not previously thought about the limits that marriage imposes on relationships. It loosely can be connected to issues of sexuality. Should there be a dichotomy, gay and straight, or can sexuality be looked at on a spectrum. The same concept could be applied to marriage. The book seems to be saying that marriage would make other relationships less legitimate, there would be single and married, however there are so many more intimate arraignments that people desire and this chapter made me aware of such.

Observation Journal #3

This summer I worked at Macy's in Hawaii at Lancome doing makeup and selling cosmetics. It is a very busy mall that all the tourist frequent. It is also in a place that is one of the most diverse cities I have ever been too. Everyone is usually a little bit of something and it is not uncommon to ask "what are you" in a very non-offensive way. Racism does exhist but in a very different sense than in does in the Continental U.S. That being said this vast mix of different ethnicitys has a tendency, in my opinion, to create some very good looking people. When not busy a lot of the other girls and I would stand around, gossip, and comment people who walked by. One day I was with some girls I did not know very well and an extremely attractive man walked by, he looked like Tyrese (just so you get my point), and I pointed him out. One of the girls said "oh you like black guys" and I was taken aback. The way she said it, and her comments after, had to do with my being white. I have seen some of her ex-boyfriends, who are at least part black, and she is Filipino, Chinese, and Hawaiian. The way she said it was in a way that made it seem like it was odd for me, being white, to find this black man attractive. I countered her comment with "no I don't just like black guys, I like good looking guys". I do not care what ethnic mix someone is, I don't typecast my attraction to people, but I will notice good looking guys when I'm bored at work. This story came to mind when discussing in class the idea of Vermont and the lack of diversity there is here and really made me wonder how an interaction like this would happen in Vermont when it was met rather negatively in a place that is so diverse. The fact that this type of question occurs in such a diverse and accepting place says a lot about how permeated racism is in American society. I say this because I know for a fact it had to do with me being white. There are many polynesian and black people who date and I have friends who are a mix of black, Filipino, Chinese ect. Even in Hawaii, where everyone interacts with everyone (for the most part), it is still regarded as slightly odd for someone who is white and someone who is black to date, this is one of the few interracial dating mixes that I have encounted with opposition. I think that says a lot about how American society's opinion has effected even those in a place so used to a melting pot of race and ethnicity.

Reading Reflection #5

"Stereotypes, in and of themselves, are merely cognitive mechanisms we all use to find commonalities among groups and to simplify our perceptual worlds. Hence, they can be positive or negative or even neutral"
-Identities and Inequalities: Expressing Inequalities

This chapter right away seemed very confusing to me. I did not understand how Newman could talk about how stereotypes, even positive ones were bad and the say they were not. He talks about woman being regarded as good mothers and how that can have a negative impact on their lives in regards to pay and their behaviors and also how woman who do not have children are looked at as outside the norm. He even translate woman being regarded as good with children to its effect on abortion law. In the next section he goes on to say that stereotypes can be positive and I think he is negating his own point. Sure there can be positive stereotypes such as "Asians are smart" and perhaps being Asian you might enjoy some benefits from that. However even though being smart is a positive attribute being put in the" smart" category based on your race is not, to me at least. This is the same as woman being good mothers and nurtures. I am not good with children in the least and feel foolish when someone thrusts a child at me and I have no idea what to do with it. I am then regarded as odd because I don't think a little kid is "so cute". I just found this chapter to be a little convoluted it its argument and do not agree that stereotypes can be neutral, let alone positive. I feel stereotypes always have negative connotations (is that a stereotype?).

Reading Reflection #4

"The very essence of who we are-out gender, our racial and class identity, our sexuality-is not private property"
-Identities and Inequalities: Learning Difference

This chapter began with an interesting story about parents who tried to keep their twins from learning gender specific roles but to their dismay found they were unable to do so. This is because they forgot that gender, as well as race, class, and sexuality, are not solely private matters but are also influenced by society. This chapter was interesting however it is similar material I have found we learn in many of our social work (if that is your major) and psychology classes. This idea that everything fits in a private and public world and is socialize according this both is a concept often covered in these classes. I thought the section that was interesting and not often covered was about learning sexuality. I have always felt that this subject can tend to be very hush hush and not often talked about. School occasionally tries to teach both males and females about "the birds and the bees" but unless you have parents who are very comfortable discussing sex and sexuality there is little else you are taught beyond what you see in the media and from peers. Newman backs up this idea by saying that "straightforward, direct sexual socialization is relatively uncommon-consequently, the information that children do receive tends to be largely informal, piecemeal, and peer-driven.(122)" I think this part of the chapter gave weight to the importance of education about sexuality. He also discusses the heteronormative aspect of the information that is out there which I feel further makes a case for the importance of sexual information both hetero and homo to today's youth. This chapter discusses how society socializes them with everything else. Why not sexuality as well?