Sociological Musings

Ideological Shifts in the Professorial Ranks

2008-07-03T12:17:00.000-07:00

'On Campus, the '60s Begin to Fade as Liberal Professors Retire' in today's NY Times addresses the ideological shift occurring in many college departments. Researchers Neil Gross and Solon Simmons conducted research on the political attitudes of professors teaching in programs where undergraduate degrees were awarded, and found that more professors are identifying themselves as moderates than in the past. Not surprisingly, the field with the largest percentage of self-identified liberals is the social science group.

What I think is most interesting is how the meanings of these words, 'moderate' or 'liberal' or 'conservative' are supposed to encompass the entire political philosophy and practical opinions of individuals, especially professors who may often have nuanced opinions due to their extensive training and research in a particular area. Further, in the sociological field a person's political leaning is becoming less relevant because of the current focus on quantitative research, which requires strict adherence to methodological and statistical norms.

Celebrate the Civil Rights Act of 1964

2008-07-02T09:36:00.001-07:00

Today is the 44th anniversary of the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed segregation, created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and protects African-Americans and women. Also this is the day the Deceleration of Independence was adopted by the Continental Congess, although it was not approved until July 4, 1776. Finally, on this day in 1777 Vermont became the first American territory to abolish slavery.

We still have so much to address and overcome in this society in terms of institutionalized and normalized systems of discrimination, but at the same time it is important to celebrate milestones such as this one. Happy July 2nd!

Othering a Problem, or Why I Hate Buying for Charity

2008-07-01T10:15:00.001-07:00

This is a recently aired commercial for Pampers diapers in which the company promotes purchasing its product by the fact that they will donate one vaccine to a child for each pack of diapers purchased.

This whole idea to buy things for charity, that problems happen to 'other' people overseas in different clothing, and that white people are the ones who can solve other people's problems by just buying shit is just so ridiculous.

First of all, if your concern is the health and safety of children perhaps you should re-think buying disposable diapers and/or perhaps donate money directly to a charity doing work you consider important for this cause. Yearly, $300 million is spent on diaper disposal (this doesn't include diaper production) and on average children use 5,000 diapers until they are potty trained. I bet $300 million buys a lot of vaccines, or other things, like clean drinking water and educational services.

Second, the United States doesn't do such a good job of vaccinating its own children. Case in point: I'm currently working on a community quality of life report for my region. I am working on health indicators, and just received information about 2007 vaccination rates for this area. My county has a 55.7% vaccination rate for adequate vaccinations for 2-3 year olds. So I don't see how this is just a problem for children in other countries, it is a problem for children in the United States. Now, state by state the vaccination rates are generally in the 90th percentile, according to the CDC, but obviously there is a lot of variation from community to community, as I have found out. Furthermore, the state-wide vaccination rates are often based on interviewed samples, and thus do not represent the total state population.

But I guess it's just more palatable for consumers if the issue of child vaccination is contextualized as a developing world, non-white people problem. If consumers do care, they can conveniently just pick up some diapers and somehow expect to help other people. What ever happened to just giving money to charity? Like with breast cancer 'branding', I often wonder how much actually goes to the designated cause and how money and resources could be used more efficiently by just being given to the charity or organization directly.

If you read the fine print on the commercial, you will see that US $0.05 is donated per package of Pampers to buy a vaccine. FIVE CENTS. A consumer could just buy generic diapers, save a buck and donate that dollar to UNICEF and then UNICEF can provide 20 vaccines. But if consumers were told this and decided to save their diaper money and donate money directly, Pampers couldn't market themselves as the 'ethical' diaper company and make money off the fact that they donate to UNICEF.

We Sure Have a Long Way to Go

2008-06-17T18:00:00.000-07:00

This pen was sold at the Texas Republican convention. While racism toward Barack Obama is not surprising, I do find it disappointing that this item was sold at a political convention of a major political party. American society still has so far to go in terms of honestly confronting race and ethnicity issues, especially white privilege.

Thinking more about this button, I would bet that the person who made this button is a white person and someone who has the privilege to make such a statement without fear of repercussions. Contrast that with the fact that Senator Obama's pastor was skewered in the national media for making statements against America and white privilege. Who has the privilege to discuss race and ethnicity issues in this society?

via Dallas Morning News

Also, the fascination with the presidential election in China.

Sexism on the Campaign Trail

2008-06-13T19:06:00.001-07:00

via Sociological Images

One more....

2008-06-11T17:15:00.000-07:00

On the word 'bitch'

...and my favorite passage:

"I'm all for a lively discussion of how the word is used in daily life: by men, by women, in jest, in earnest. But I don't foresee that dialogue taking place in a political arena that considers mere femaleness a deficiency. Talking about the use of the word -- against Clinton, Browne Sanders or everyday women everywhere -- just isn't helpful if we don't also address the many unsaid words that follow in its wake.

My own definition of the term being what it is, I can confidently say that I want my next president to be a bitch, and that goes for men and women. Outspoken? Check. Commanding? Indeed. Unworried about pleasing everybody? Sure. Won't bow to pressure to be "nice"? You bet.

And guess what? I'm not even sure that person is Hillary Clinton."

Links Roundup: Volume 1

2008-06-11T15:50:00.000-07:00

So I've cleaned out my links in order to re-do my blog reading and computer set-up. In the future, I'll organize this better...promise. Enjoy!

Education:
A Proposal for Remedying the Endowment Gap in Higher Education
Youngest College Professor In History
"You and Your Research"
Invasive Technology and Brain Damage
Is a College Education for Everyone?
Documentaries that go well with sociological topics

Race and Ethnicity:
Social Construction of Ethnic/Racial Labels
Racism on the Campaign Trail
Analysis of VF article on Madonna's adoption of a Malawian child
Detained Immigrants Illegally Drugged for Deportation
Drug Enforcement and Race in the United States
Nearer to Overcoming

Economic System:
Family Gives Up Possessions
Present-Day Slavery in the United States
US States Matched with Country of Similar GDP
Logic of Lottery Games

The Official Food of Women

2008-06-10T14:45:00.000-07:00

What to make of this...

2008-05-28T21:09:00.000-07:00

The exhibit 'Cherry Pop' by artist Jahan Loh deals with the tearing of the hymen, presumably in intercourse, of virgin women by using graphic sculpture of women bleeding massive amounts of blood along with paintings of women presumably experiencing sexual pleasure.

image via hypebeast

I find it interesting how these sculptures are faceless, much like other images of women in the media as headless bodies. This type of imagery commodifies women and takes away their humanity: these are images of appropriate femininity, but not actual women. Furthermore, the fetishization of the hymen blood signifies the cultural mythology behind the virgin women ideal. I find this art to be thought provoking, but I am not sure what I think of it yet. What do you think?

What Do Feminists Think About Purses?

2008-04-20T11:05:00.000-07:00

A friend posed this question to me last week, wondering how I as a feminist felt about women carrying purses, handbags and the like. My initial response was that if a purse or bag was useful to you, then you should carry one regardless if you were a man or woman, but that I could not speak for all feminists, just for myself. After some reflection, I realized that while I agree with this final response a bit of analysis is needed to get to that conclusion.

First, the question must be asked: Why do women carry purses and not men? One reason women carry purses is because they cannot fit their essentials into their pockets, like men. Women's pant pockets are much smaller than men's pant pockets, on average. Therefore, even if women wanted to go sans purse, it would be difficult to fit wallet, keys, and phone into jean or pant pockets.

But if women wanted the convenience of carrying their things in their pockets, why aren't there widespread pant pocket options to facilitate this choice? I think women's pants have smaller average pant pocket sizes for two reasons. One: women would not look as heterosexually appealing with bulging pockets by their hips and asses. Two: if women cannot fit their things in their pants, they are required to spend more money to buy a purse to carry their things around in. One of the ways in which women are oppressed in western society is through economics: women make lower salaries than men (on average women make 80% what a man makes) and women are compelled to spend more of their hard earned money on items and procedures deemed necessary, such as on large wardrobes, and beauty treatments and products to appear conventionally attractive.

Many women also carry non-essential items in their bags, such as band-aids, asprin, and other items that may be needed in an emergency. For instance, some women carry Tide pens for stains or a packet of tissues in their handbags. On more than one occasion, a man has asked me if I had one of these items available in my purse to help him out. Given that women are socialized to be helpful nurturers, it is not surprising that women are expected to carry such items around in their bags. Now, I'm not offended if a man (or woman) asks me if I have a needed item, and if I have it, I am happy to share. My point is that I would never ask a man if he had some asprin in his pockets or anything like that, but I would totally ask a woman.

So, there is a bit of background for why I think women largely carry purses and men do not. I think there is a certain amount of reflection that is helpful to get to my final point: if a bag is helpful or useful to you, then carry one. My bag is useful to me, I usually carry a notebook, a book to read, perhaps a snack, and some lip gloss. I don't feel oppressed by carrying a handbag, but I don't think women should be expected to carry one, just as a man should carry a bag if he needs one. I think the final point is that regardless of your gender socialization, if something is good for you, then do it.

On Death and Dying

2008-04-02T11:35:00.000-07:00

Life Before Death

This is a series of photos of people before and after they die, along with quotes and commentary regarding death. Seeing these images reminds me to enjoy the time I have, because I don't know how much time I will have to enjoy. It is interesting to force yourself to think about death, because as a culture we spend very little time, I believe, thinking about our limited lives. We will all die. Because of the finite amount of time and life that we are given, we can be driven to achieve great things and enjoy life and the world around us, knowing that one day our time will be up.

I've been thinking a lot about what to do next year: go to school, move away, find a job, try to write. Forcing myself to think about death and the limited time offer of life has made me realize that I need to keep in mind that it's not so much the choice I make, but what I make of the choice.

What Sociologists (hopefuly) do not do

2008-03-21T11:38:00.000-07:00

This is a clip of Sudhir Venkatesh on The Colbert Report discussing his new book, which focuses on his research on gangs in Chicago. This research was previously discussed in Freakeconomics.

What is interesting about this clip is that Venkatesh, who has spent a year working with economically deprived individuals, goes on television to promote his book (which I'm sure he will make a tidy sum of money from) and garner some laughs at the expense of his research subjects. Furthermore, his description of the questions he asked the gang members at the start of his research project are ridiculous. He asked them how it felt to be "black and poor", but said that they could not answer. Someone who is a doctoral student at the University of Chicago ought to know better!

Throughout the interview, Venkatesh reinforces stereotypes about inner-city gang members and does not question why police choose not to intervene in conflicts in these neighborhoods. In fact, he seems to enjoy the attention he is receiving for his research intuition. I mean, because sociologists never research poor people or non-white people. Again, this is an example of the 'sociology of the marked', the desire of sociologists to question and research that which is exotic to them. Furthermore, Venkatesh's ability to gain access to this population and publish a book about them highlights the legitimacy that social scientists (and other formally educated individuals) are given in our society that is not given to other people, such as gang members. How would Venkatesh feel if gang members decided to follow him around for a year in an attempt to understand the life of doctoral students? Because as members of the social world, aren't we all sociologists?

Stuff White People Like

2008-02-23T09:59:00.000-08:00

A good friend of mine just emailed me the link to this blog, Stuff White People Like. The blog, at present, presents a detailed list of 73 things white people like, including recycling, renovating, living by bodies of water, and 'diversity'.

I think what is most interesting about this blog is that it is not about white people per se, but about upper-class white people, which is how whiteness is defined culturally. The blog is also an interesting case of the study of the unmarked, the analysis of a group generally rendered invisible in racial/ethnic discourse.

Axe has no effect on me...and never will. I'm sure Hillary feels the same.

2008-02-12T09:06:00.001-08:00

This is just offensive.

Boyzillians: Bikini Waxes for Men

2008-01-28T20:18:00.000-08:00

Today I stumbled upon this article about the rising trend in Boyzilians (named after the waxing treatment for women called the Brazilian), which are bikini and body waxes for men. Popularity for the beauty treatment has (allegedly) increased with the widespread appearance of the David Beckham Emporio Armani ads.
I suppose what happens is that some men see this image and want to emulate this particular version of male sexuality. Therefore, they have their body hair waxed off, in various degrees of removal. Some just do the bikini line (called the 'Speedo') while others will have their thighs, backs, and chests waxed as well.

What is interesting about this whole concept of male grooming is how advertising is being used to exploit male self-conscious about body image. According to the article, men only comprise 5% of spa/salon service usage, but their numbers are expected to increase.

Media images often portray idealized versions of male and female sexuality which, for most individuals, would require massive amounts of time, effort, and capital to achieve. While the desire to appear attractive is biological (thus to attract potential mates), I would argue that the desire to experience painful, expensive beauty treatments is not.

Rather, the desire to undergo such procedures, and other extreme procedures, such as plastic surgery, can be explained by game theory. Game theory is an applied mathematical theory used in the social sciences; the premise is that the behavior of individuals depends on the behavior of other individuals. The costs and benefits of actions change with the behavior of other people. Thus, if individuals in a society do not receive beauty treatments or do not have access to such services, the ideal standard of male and female attractiveness will reflect what is available in that society.

In American society, where access to beauty treatments is largely unrestricted, it is considered normal for individuals to dye their hair, remove body hair, and spend a considerable amount of time grooming. Individuals who perform these beauty rituals are rewarded for it by being considered to possess more traits equated with conventional attractiveness. Therefore, other individuals are motivated to participate in such activities so that they too will be considered conventionally attractive. Those who do not participate in these activities may be considered less attractive, since the norm of male and female attractiveness will be changed with the addition of beauty-treatment engaging individuals.

The issue is collective behavior. For example, a majority of American individuals have access to cable television. If someone does not, that fact is considered extraordinary by many individuals who do have cable access. The same issue is present for beauty rituals; women who do not wear makeup are considered deviant, in the sense that they do not follow societal norms. Are we turning into a society where individuals must engage in costly, painful, and unnecessary procedures to achieve a socially constructed baseline of attractiveness?

Well, regardless of the answer, bear in mind that women are still expected to engage in these rituals, or else experience sanctions. The article concludes with this quote:

"Men have been tidying themselves up for years, but I can't see the majority going the full hog. It'll stay a vanity thing. It'll never be like with women, when everyone stares if they don't shave their armpits."

Billion dollar endowments

2008-01-26T09:47:00.000-08:00

Billion dollar endowments have become the norm at institutions of higher learning; the riches from the endowments will fund university expansion and provide bragging rights in the academic community. The university I attend continuously promotes its billion dollar endowment; Harvard, on the other hand has a $34 billion endowment.

Endowments are a special type of donation. The donor of an endowment expects for their money to be invested; over time, the donation is able to have more of an impact. Many chairs in departments (not department chair, but designated chairs) are funded through endowments. In theory, endowments are a logical fund raising mechanism because the money is allowed to make money in the stock market.

Endowments are managed by hedge fund managers, the new superstars of Supercapitalism (to borrow from Robert Reich). These managers are given the task of making money no matter what. Because if money isn't made, or is lost, the institution will pay the price in terms of budget cuts. The Art Institute of Chicago faced 3% budget cuts in 2001 because of a $39 million hit to their endowment.

Collectively, endowments in the United States and Canada have grown 21% in the 2006-2007 academic year. Spending from endowments, across the board, has averaged 4.6%. This discrepancy has not escaped the eyes of United State's lawmakers; on Thursday, Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), in the Senate, requested data from 136 universities on financial aid spending, tuition costs, and endowment growth. It will certainly be interesting to see how this plays out.

Regardless of intention, endowments seem inherently flawed to me. Educational institutions should be in the business of educating people, not making money. I would be interested to see where all of the money goes at my school. As a public institution, there ought to be more transparency about the endowment process and how this money is made.

Furthermore, endowments are not taxed as income, even though they generate billions of dollars in revenue. Elite institutions have a clear advantage when raising money. Their alum generally make more money than the average American citizen. Many of their students come from backgrounds of vast wealth. If these funds were taxed, the federal government could redistribute some of the income to institutions and individuals who do not have such an advantage.

I will continue to discuss this issue as more information is made available from the Senate investigations. I hope that the outcome from attention on this issue is higher spending from endowments. Given that educational attainment is so important for social mobility and a comfortable standard of living in our society (and it will grow in importance as the economy changes), it is more important than ever to provide everyone the opportunity to further their education. If institutions have so much money, why isn't more of it being used for these means?