Wednesday, October 15 at 11 a.m.
Location: Sylvania Campus, PAC Auditorium
Tim Wise: Beyond Diversity

Beyond "Diversity": Challenging Racism in an Age of Backlash
Book signing to follow.
Contact: Multicultural Center at 503.977.4112

Thursday, October 16 at 11 a.m.
White Privilege: Racism, White Denial & the Costs of Inequality
Location: Cascade Campus, MAHB 104 with overflow seating in CA TH 122
Wise offers a highly personal examination of the ways in which racial privilege shapes the lives of most white Americans, overtly racist or not, to the detriment of people of color, themselves, and society. Using stories instead of stale statistics, Wise weaves a narrative that is at once readable yet scholarly, analytical, and accessible.
Contact: Kendi Esary at 503.978.5781

Saturday, October 18 at 9 a.m.
Location: Rock Creek Campus, Building 3, Forum
"Profiles in Distortion: Misusing Data to Justify Racism and Privilege"
Tim Wise, writer and activist
Wise is among the most prominent anti-racist writers and activists in the U.S., having given lectures in 48 different states, and on over 400 college campuses. He has trained a multitude of teachers, corporate employees and law enforcement officers in methods for dismantling racism in their institutions.
Contact: Brenda Maldonado at 503-614-7279.

I am looking forward to meeting you all and to having an exceptional start to the new school year. Please feel free to explore the site and resources available. You may access the syllabus and look it over. It indicates the required texts, course requirements and our schedule.

I chose this topic because there does not seem to be a week that goes by that I hear some comment from a friend, family member, the media, or just someone in passing that seems to falsely explain the poverty situation. It has become obvious to me that American's in general really buy the "pull yourself up by bootstraps" theory, hook, line and sinker. My mother, who raised me, came from a poor family of twelve brothers and sisters and sometimes around mealtime, it was survival of the fittest. Needless to say, I have also been socialized to think that the homeless and poor create their own problems and if they wanted to do better, they could, just like my mom and her siblings. That the lower class and poor are lazy and that they do nothing but drain the money out of the hard working pockets of people who have pulled themselves up by their boot straps. Through much observation, life experience, a decent amount of reading, and some informative classes I have concluded that this issue is far more complex then the general public understands.

How the middle class helps keep the rich rich and the poor poor.

A developing theory of mine has been that as long at the middle class stays relatively content, they will never push for the reform it takes to truly help the lower classes. It is almost as if the middle class acts as a mere buffer to keep the lower classes of the backs of the wealthy. It is not my idea that the middle class consciously holds down the lower classes but that the middle class has been somewhat of an unconscious control mechanism. Most social reform seems to come at a time when poverty strikes a society, the rich have gotten to rich and not shared this wealth and large numbers of the middle class join the lower classes. Leonhardt talks about this trend as it is currently happening by stating (2008), "But the larger point is still crucial: the modern American economy distributes the fruits of its growth to a relatively narrow slice of the population." The middle and lower classes do not receive much of this "slice", but unless the middle class recognizes this, things tend not to change. The lower classes never have enough people to turn back the ways that support the upper classes, unless the middle classes join them.

During the depression, Ohio History Central noted that (2005), "By 1932, twelve million Americans were unemployed. Approximately one out of every four American families no longer had an income." Those numbers show a middle class that shrank and thus a lower class that was enlarged and emboldened. There was sweeping social reform during this era with new programs and policies like, more restrictions and regulations on corporate behavior, the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Civil Works Administration, and the National Industrial Recovery Act. All of these came under the New Deal administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt (Ohio History Central, 2005).If the middle class had not been impacted by policies that made the rich richer and had been kept moderately stable, I doubt there would have been such sweeping changes. The U.S. Department of State further states that (n.d.), "Indeed, historians generally credit the New Deal with establishing the foundations of the modern welfare state in the United States." Ironically, Roosevelt never liked the term welfare, as he was more apt to be against direct handouts and preferred work programs (Starnes, n.d.). It is possible that Roosevelt merely redefined the idea of what welfare was or could be. As modest as our welfare state is in comparison to that of other modern European societies, it was none-the-less a step in the direction of taking care of the lower class and poor. Our current economy could lead to one of those times when the middle class wakes up and looks to help the lower class, or they may just join the lower class. Lumby states (2008), "Unlike what happened during the economic boom of the 1990s, lower- and middle-class families did not share in the prosperity of recent years, the report found. In fact, the United States has had its longest jobless recovery and slowest rate of payroll growth during this decade." I see this as a sign that we could be heading to a new "New Deal".

It is easy pin the responsibly for the raw deal the lower class gets on bulging pockets of the rich and wealthy. They are the ones making windfall profits while the poor and middle class gain the same or as in recent times, less. My reason for putting the blame on the middle class is because the wealthy will always seek more wealth, this has never stopped and I cannot see this way of being becoming extinct in the near future. The only times that I have seen it held in check and think that it can be held in check is when the middle class does not let it self be appeased by the upper class and it joins the lower classes fighting for equality. Maybe, by voting in politicians that are not in the pockets of the wealthy, ones that will create fair tax codes and recycle some of the enormous wealth accumulated at the top back down in to programs that help alleviate the barriers associated with poverty will we gain control of this problem. My idea is, contradictory to that of functional theorist, is that we can have capitalism and that is does not need function with a lower class or the poor but a well regulated upper class, thus creating maybe two classes, the class of enough and the class of a little more than enough.

The media

To me, the media has been one of the main spokespersons for the idea of, "anyone can ascend to the top and they just need to work hard to get there." They share the rags to riches story of Sam Walton in way that makes us all think we can achieve it. Butch discusses, (n.d.) "In his 1992 article "Social Mobility in Television Comedies" (Critical Studies in Mass Communication), Lewis Freeman found that upward mobility in sitcoms of 1990-1992 was achieved through self-sacrifice and reliance, reinforcing the ethic of individualism which makes each person responsible for his or her socio-economic status. Thus one's status is an indicator of one's ability, character and moral worth." In my mind, this creates a false sense of accessibility to the upper classes and a potentially hazardous behavior. If middle and lower classes think they can have all of things they see on TV by just working hard, and then come to find out as the often do, that it is not so possible, they become dejected and defeated. Ironically, all along the way of the journey to become wealthy or move up in class, the middle and lower classes assist the rich becoming more affluent by working hard for others gain and buying the products that are supposed to make them feel like the happy people on television. Beyond sitcoms, my television, radio, and print media experiences have shown me many rags to riches stories but I can hardly recall a story about the person who worked so very hard to only come up with nothing.

The media also demonstrates to the public that to be happy is to consume. By consuming and buying the products that will supposedly make us happy, we fund large corporations getting richer. Even worse, the large corporations make more money by outsourcing the production of the products we buy to other countries, which in turn neglects the consumer who buys the products in the first place. The media, specifically sitcoms, have been portraying mass consumption as the way to be for ages. Butsch shares, "In a 1986 Cultural Anthropology article George Lipsitz examined seven ethnic working class TV sitcoms from the 1950s and found sentimental images of ethnic families combined with themes promoting consumption." It is not that we have to stop consuming as a society; it is that the media portrays consumption on a level that is not sustainable for all classes. The wealthy will not feel the pinch if they over consume or over borrow as much as the middle class and the lower class will.

Unequal access to resources

Easier access to resources like education and healthcare give an upper hand to the upper class and help keep the stratified class system in the United States intact. By not having equal access to things like education and healthcare, the middle and the lower classes have a difficult, if not nearly an impossible time, ascending their respective classes. Whether these systems are conscious creations of the upper class or not, they do work in the favor of the wealthy and they help not only keep them rich but often help them grow richer.

Education

For ten years, I have been witnessing the unequal access to education through my work with an organization called College Summit. I have seen thousands of students with grades good enough to make it in to college, not go to college because of various reasons, the most prominent being financial resources. The College Summit website states, "Up until this point, our education system has not systematically ensured that all young people who are college-ready actually make it to college. National data indicates that low-income students who got A's on a standardized test went to college at the same rate as top-income students who got D's on the same standardized test" (n.d.). This shows me that it is not merely grades that distinguish those who can attend college but more a factor of wealth. Bogle shares (2008), "For some time, US public colleges and universities have responded to cuts in state and federal funding by raising tuition and hiring part-time instead of full-time instructors (presently, approximately one half of the nation's college faculty are working under part-time contracts). Both actions have made it increasingly difficult for middle- and working-class students to attain a quality higher education. As tuition has risen, many students have been forced to work more hours (sometimes at two to three part-time jobs), take out more loans, or simply forgo higher education altogether." The increased cost of higher education serves the wealthy and not the lower classes by eliminating one of the resources that could potentially even the playing field. When the government, "the protector of the people", cut funding for schools, it becomes unclear who they are protecting. College graduates simply make more than non-college graduates do. Via the U.S. Census, Day and Newburger published these findings (2002), Adults ages 25 to 64 who worked at any time during the study period5 earned an average of $34,700 per year.6 Average earnings ranged from $18,900 for high school dropouts to $25,900 for high school graduates, $45,400 for college graduates, and $99,300 for workers with professional degrees (M.D., J.D., D.D.S., or D.V.M.)" When you consider the cost of graduate school, it becomes daunting for a student to consider this amount of dept as opposed to a student who comes from a wealthy family, where they can simply foot the bill for their children's education. The lack of access to education creates barriers for the middle and lower classes and helps keep the current class system strong and difficult to maneuver up out of the lower classes.

Healthcare

The healthcare system in the United States serves the wealthy and to some extent forgets the lower classes. As in education, the access to healthcare is dictated by the amount of resources a person or family has. The more resources, the better health or healthcare one can receive. When economic choices have to be made between education and healthcare, education will lose. Yardley observed (2008) that in Oregon, 600,000 people do not have healthcare and the government money reserved for healthcare will only cover about 24,000 of them. This leaves an enormous gap and this means that the people that do not receive benefits have to direct major portions of the income to cover their health care. Most cannot cover this cost and go in to spirally and insurmountable dept. Add massive dept to the barriers the lower class face and once again it makes it nearly impossible for them to ascend their class. It seems that a middle class family is always one medical disaster away from being moved down in the lower class. One of the uninsured people, like Louanne Moldovan, who Mirchandani shares about (2008), "They are unpaid medical bills, stretching back a year, arising from treatment for Crohn's Disease, the chronic intestinal condition she suffers from. She thinks she owes nearly $15,000", has a hard time of recovering from such giant unplanned bills. The simple obstacle just being able to get work to earn an income comes to mind when healthcare is not provided to all. Healthcare should not be a barrier any class has to face in a modern society but it is in the United States, thus keeping the poor poor and rich rich.

Both education and health care are thing the government could manage in a way that would help create equal opportunities for all. With out these two things being accessible to all, I find it very difficult to imagine the class structure of the United States every changing. From this perspective, I see the government as being somewhat responsible for the poor remaining poor.

Conclusion

I have only discussed three of the sociological obstacles that help keep the United States stratified class system in place, there are many more. By just considering these three phenomena, one can already see how difficult it might be for the middle and lower classes to ever move up in our supposedly open and free system. If pulling your self up by your bootstraps would be all that it took, I image there would be hardly any people in poverty as there would be so many who were rich that the mere scraps they share with the rest of the society would more than cover those who did not grab and pull hard on their straps.

References
Butsch, R. (n.d.). Social class and television. The Museum of Broadcast Communications. Retrieved June 10th, 2008, from http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/S/htmlS/socialclass/socialclass.htm

Cheeseman, D. & Newburger, E. (2002, July). The Big Payoff: Educational
Attainment and Synthetic Estimates of Work-Life Earnings. Retrieved June 10th, 2008, from http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p23-210.pdf

College Summit. Retrieved June 10th, 2008, from http://www.collegesummit.org/school-districts/superintendents-and-principals/college-enrollment-gap/

Great Depression (2005, July 1). Ohio History Central, Retrieved June 10th, 2008, from http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=500

Leonhardt, D. (2008, April 9). For Many, a Boom That Wasn't. New York Times. Retrieved June 10th, 2008, from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/09/business/09leonhardt.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Luhby T. (2008, April 8). As income gap widens, recession fears grow. CNN Money.com. Retrieved June 10th, 2008, from http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/depression/overview.htm

The Depression in the United States--An Overview. Retrieved June 10th, 2008, from http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/depression/overview.htm

U.S. Department of State (n.d). A New Coalition. Retrieved June 10th, 2008, from http://countrystudies.us/united-states/history-99.htm

Starnes, R. (n.d.). The History Teacher. Retrieved June 10th, 2008, from http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ht/35.1/br_3.html

Yardley, W. (2008, Marth 13th). Drawing Lots for Health Care. The New York Times. Retrieved June 10th, 2008, from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/13/us/13bend.html

Starnes, R. (n.d.). The History Teacher. Retrieved June 10th, 2008, from http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ht/35.1/br_3.html

Today, roughly149,000 women are incarcerated throughout the United States. (TIME Magazine Tammerlin/ Drummmond, Miami 2000) What has contributed to women being sent to jail, and how are they treated in prisons that were designed and structured for men? When a new methodology was introduced called the feminist scholarship (Belknap in 2001) there was more information brought to light on why women committed crimes, and how gender plays a large part in the type of crimes.

War on Drugs
Over the last ten years, researchers have argued that the "war on drugs" is to blame for the increase of women being incarcerated. With harsh rulings and a "lock them up and throw away the key "attitude, when it comes catching people doing or selling drugs. Rather than taking the time and money to tackle the real issue. The justice system takes a "out of sight out of mind" approach to the problem surrounding drugs in society. So what could be the reason why there are so many problems with drugs? Is it people's constant fear, and dismay of life or their situation? Maybe people have been taught you have to live up to the fantasy life style shown on television and without money you can't. People sell drugs because they are poor, and they have no other way, and have been taught by watching others that's what they need to do to live, and to make it in the world. There are so many reasons why people do or sell drugs, and so many more inequalities that play a part that lead them to do so.

Some researchers and scholars have gone as far as to say "the war on drugs has become a war on women"(Belknap 2002; Bloom & Chesney-Lind 2000; Owen, 2000 & 1998, Cheney-Lind 1997) the bureau of Justice Statistics has found 1 in 3 women are doing time for drug offenses, there is measurable gender-based difference in the rates of this increase.(Drug Policy, Barbara Owen Department of Criminology California State University Fresno) "Racism and economic discrimination are inextricably linked to sexism in our culture, creating severe inequalities in the court system and the prison system." (May 1994 issue report of Women's Economic Agenda Project) Even without contributing or being present in criminal activity, a woman involved with a drug offender may suffer eviction, forfeiture, and the imposition of a greater disproportion of family responsibilities.("Counting the Drug War's Female Casualties" Phyllis Goldfarb George Washington University Law School) Because women rarely have an adequate amount of information, they can offer in to police or lawyers, to help the prosecution in many cases due to the lack of direct involvement, or fear of retaliation, women have very little to use as a bargaining tool during sentencing, to plea a bargain and usually end up with an un fair long, prison sentence.

Crimes
Statistics show that the majority of violent crimes involving innocent people are not by women, or men use illegal drugs, cocaine of methamphetamine etc. but involve alcohol, which is a main contributor in many violent crimes. "Illegal drugs and violence are linked primarily through drug marketing: disputes among rival distributors, arguments and robberies involving buyers and sellers, property crimes committed to raise drug money and, more speculatively, social and economic interactions between the illegal markets and the surrounding communities." (Schaffer drug s) Why people are are being thrown in jail for drug use, if they have not committed a violent crime? Why they are not sent to rehab or a separate facility all together with so many "new prisons" being built? Why not have separate systems for drug offenders? It has been said that the rise in drug offenses are due in part to prohibition much like when alcohol was illegalized, and the noticeable crime increase during alcohol prohibition. Why Inter mingle women and men convicted of drug crimes, in a prisons with hard criminals, who have been convicted of more severe or crimes that they committed with a "clear mind". Meaning they weren't on drugs when they committed the crime, and their judgment wasn't impaired. These two completely different criminals need to be kept separate from one another. By sending these women and men who have drug problems to prison, you are only creating a "new" kind of criminal. The real criminals in prison, doing time for various crimes teach the ones coming in on basic criminal charges-of drug possession and/ or distribution, to become a more effective criminal when they get out. Or treat them with such abuse there is damage done to the prisoner put in jail on drug charges, that is irreversible and detrimental to their wellbeing and possibly destroys the chance they had for recovery. The prisons system has made these men and women feel "that they have nothing to lose, they now have a criminal record" which will forever tarnish their "status" and "role" in society. They will have a harder time getting a job, and credit. They may have already lost their jobs before entering the systems, family, respect and their house. This stripping of all assets has a rippling effect on someone; they will feel there is no other way to survive but to continue a life of crime.

One way to analysis women and crime was best described by "(Pollock, 2002; Belknap, 2001; Chensey-Lind, 1997). "Research on women in prison has reveled that women's criminality must be understood in terms of the context of women's lives". They described three central issues that shape a women's life before imprisonment, that plays a vital role to why a women ends up in prison: Abuse in previous relationships; primarily by a male, problems in family and personal relationships, children (primarily with males) and drug use. "(Pollock, 2002; Belknap, 2001; Chensey-Lind, 1997). If women have had a history of abuse, sexual, physical has shown to lead to drug use; chances are a life of crime is what this will amount to, and increase in imprisonment for women. About 80 percent of women inmates have already experienced some kind of sexual or physical abuse before prison. (Powerless in prison: Sexual Abuse against Incarcerated Women: Nicole Summer, RH Reality Check on December 2007) If statistics show how women have been imprisoned in part, to some type of abuse either by the person they committed a crime towards, or in a previous setting sometime in their life, why isn't there a different system in place for women? Abuse is something women are much more susceptible to than a man. Men battle with physical, emotional and/or verbal abuse, in most cases by their father or other male family member. Women have a much higher rate of being a victim of physical, sexual abuse and emotional abuse. Believed largely in part to how women are portrayed in this world as: sexual objects, small, and weak vulnerable, sensitive, gentle, subordinate. Women are preyed on by men, what chance does women have to fight off abuse? Most commonly women are abused as a child, and in most cases goes unnoticed for years, if not until adulthood. In any other setting these women would be categorized a victim, yet are being placed in a system that isn't fit to help victims, only make more.

Women's rights ignored
Women in prisons have been given an unequal opportunity for rehabilitation. "Historically, women have been underrepresented at all levels of the criminal justice system. This under representation of women has resulted in a criminal justice system created by males for males which the diverse needs of women are forgotten and neglected" (Health Disparities and Incarcerated Women: A Population Ignored" Ronald L. Braithwaite, PhD, Henrie M. Treadwell, PhD, and Kimberly R. J. Arriola, PhD, MPH (Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man (1952) Women's prisons were not built with women's needs in mind, they were built for Men. Reports have shown women in prison routinely complain that their gynecological and routine exams, including required breast examinations are not given, and that basic medical attention of female inmates is often overlooked or ignored. (Health Disparities and Incarcerated Women: A Population Ignored Ronald L. Braithwaite, PhD, Henrie M. Treadwell, PhD, and Kimberly R. J. Arriola, PhD, MPH) Women have very different needs then men, not only emotionally but also physically. Some of the problems women are faced with when they enter the system are due to a limited history of medical attention. The statistics show 80% of women in prison report incomes of less than $2,000 per year in the year before their arrest, and 92% report incomes under $10,000) Making it so many women, who enter into the prison system have had very little previous healthcare. Someone entering as former prostitutes have a higher chance of having STD's, HIV/AIDS and/or other diseases. It has been found that 70% of Women incarcerated suffer with mental health issues, (www.womeninprison.org) issues stemming most likely from a history of physical and/or mental abuse. These disorders need to be treated by a physician to fully recover. Instead women are sent to prison where they are open to additional abusive situations and neglect.

Behind the bars

"Amnesty International reports that in 2004, a total of 2,298 allegations of staff sexual misconduct against both male and female inmates were made, and more than half of these cases involved women as victims, a much higher percentage than the 10 percent that women comprise of the total prison population."

"In federal women's correctional facilities, studies shows 70% of guards are male and records show correctional officials have subjected female inmates to rape, other sexual assault, sexual extortion, and groping during body searches. Male correctional officials have unlimited access to women's privacy, they watch women undressing, in the shower or the toilet. Male correctional officials retaliate, often brutally, against female inmates who complain about sexual assault and harassment"(Amnesty USA. com)

What message does this send to women incarcerated when the justice system tolerates this behavior. (Powerless in prison: Sexual Abuse against Incarcerated Women: Nicole Summer, RH Reality Check on December 2007) Women guards should be the only people allowed in areas in the prison where privacy is required, better yet maybe only women guards should be allowed in women prison facilities. Because the message I get is "You belong to the system now, and you have no say in who sees your body and what is done with it" this most likely is the same message they received outside of jail, before incarceration, while being abused and raped. Then they are sent to jail and are made to feel violated and raped by the system. It also tells women "That they are not safe anywhere, a man has the right to hit you and abuse you" and get away with it. Even with in a system that was designed to protect. Do you lose your basic rights as a human being upon entering prison?

The majority of the cases where a women was sent to prison on violent charges, they were charged in "self defense" Women sent to prison because they killed/or attempted to kill the person who was beating them, or raping them. Women are being beat, abused and raped by prison guards, who are there to "serve and protect" Women are made to feel unsafe, and are placed back into the harmful situation they lost their lives , family and children and thrown into prison because of. Prison Guards have also been known to threaten to take away prisoners visitation with family or children in an effort to silence a female prisoner. In many cases, guards are encouraged to view a prisoner's chart, to see what they are "up against". In male prisons, I can see how it is an important decision to be prepared, but why would a male guard need to view files of a women who was a "non violent" offender? It has been noted that many times the Guard is obtaining information to be used against the prisoner, names of family members' addresses, personal past problems, another way guards rule with fear. Not all guards behave this way, but the statistics which including letters written by prisoners, suggests that it is a common behavior that has gone unnoticed, or ignored.

Mother's in Prison are still Mothers.
Out of the 149,000 women incarcerated through out the United States, 7o% is found to have at least one child under the age of 18 years old. (TIME magazine, Tammerlin Drummond/Miami 2000) 15% have infants younger than 6 weeks and between 5% and 10% of incarcerated women enter correctional facilities while pregnant. (Health Disparities and Incarcerated Women: A Population Ignored" Ronald L. Braithwaite, PhD,Henrie M. Treadwell, PhD, and Kimberly R. J. Arriola, PhD, MPH (Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man (1952) Being a mother incarcerated takes an emotional and physical toll, psychological with the trauma around issues of bonding, separation, and parenting. Many of these issues are never addressed in prison, and a mother may never get the counseling attention a she requires to cope and recover. Do Mother's in prison have enough resources to continue to take an active roll in their Childs life? Some prisons have programs for Mothers and their children, such as Coffee Creek Correctional Facility, Wilsonville, OR. They offer Parenting and Family programs. Parenting classes, Girl scouts & Boy Scouts Behind Bars, all programs to help Mothers interact with their children and take a positive role in their lives, even if it is from behind bars. But many prisons do not participate in this type support/ rehab. Women are usually given sole custody over children. The system often sends the women to serve their time further away from home more often then it does for men/fathers, making it difficult for the caregivers of the children of the imprisoned mother to bring a child around to visit. There should be rehab facilities and/or centers for women placed in locations accessible to their family.

Work in prison
Some of the programs being offered to women today seem outdated, Coffee Creek Correctional Facility in Wilsonville, Oregon offers: laundry, sewing and knitting These programs were listed among the programs offered when the first female prison in Indiana opened in1873, though I agree it helps keep women's minds occupied in a positive way, I don't think it is helping them learn the necessary skills to join the working society. This facility does focuses on a wide range of rehabilitative services, mental rehabilitation. But isn't it time women receive better training for jobs they will be able to obtain upon leaving prison? College classes, Associates degrees? Training in jobs that can help them bring in an income seen as the majority of women/mothers incarcerated is raising their child in a single parent household. Another program Coffee Creek offers is one to obtain a GED (General Education Development or General Equivalency Degree.) program. Which upon receiving will be crucial in obtaining a job, but what if a prisoner would like to finish high school? A high school diploma is more detailed in terms of curriculum with focus on a much wider span and variety of knowledge than a GED certificate. The GED certificate program focuses primarily on the questions that will be on the exam. Having obtained my GED after attending high school for three years, I feel that I learned a lot less than if had stuck with Public school curriculum.

In conclusion, until we listen to the voices of the victims we will never truly understand why people do what they do, most times out of desperation, and we cannot learn the most effective way to help. It is an unfair assumption to think one system will work for everyone. Everyone is different and should not be punished for being different. There seems to be conflict in this society with "being wrong" it often associated with ignorance, this is not so. Being able to say a system does not work and it needs to be changed, is not a sign of weakness it is a sign of strength. There is so much inequality in this world, and all of the studies and research to prove it. Yet, those who implement the changes are not strong enough to admit the system is failing everyone, including their selves, and the longer inequality is accepted the more there will be, and we will keep taking giant steps backward. It is important to use our voice when others are too afraid to, or have had their mouths forced closed.

"Be the change you want to see in the world" Mahatma Gandhi

Bibliography

On line article: TIME Magazine, Tammerlin Drummond, Miami 2000

On line article: "Intersections of Race, Class, Gender, and Crime Future Directions for Feminist Criminology" Amanda Burgess-Proctor, Michigan State University, Sage Journals On-line

On line article: "Women In Prison" Drug Policy Alliance - Barbara Owen, Department of Criminology California State University Fresno

On line article: "Health Disparities and Incarcerated Women: A population Ignored" Ronald L Braithwaite, PhD, Henrie M. Treadwell, PhD, and Kimberly R.J. Arriola, PhD, MPH.) Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man (1952)

On line article: "Powerless in Prison: Sexual Abuse Against Incarcerated Women," Nicole Summer, RH Reality Check on December 2007

On Line article: "Counting the Drug War's Female Casualties" Phyllis Goldfarb, George Washington University Law School Goldfarb, Phyllis, (July 28, 2003). Journal of Gender, Race & Justice, Vol. 6, No. 2, Fall 2002 Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=429281

On line article: "Women in Prison: An Interview with Activist Tracy Huling, by, Sarabi, Bridgette. Summer 2001 issue of Justice Matters

On line article: www.womenandprison.org "Do I Have to Stand for This?" by Kimberly Burke , Riverside Unit, TX, 2002

On line article: womenandprison.org "Illegal Strip Searches at the Cook County Jail" by Tori Marlan

On line: DOC Operations Division: "Coffee Creek Correctional Facility"
www.OREGON.gov

On line: www.womenandprison.org

On line: Schaffer Library of Drug Policy: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/

On line: www.womendoingtime

On line: Wikipedia.com

On line: Google.com

On line: www.amnestyinternational.org

On line: www.socialscienceresearchnetwork.com (SSRN)

Book: Anderson, M Taylor, H "Sociology in Everyday Life"

Through reading Daniel Quinn's Ishmael, the reader is introduced to two very different societies that live on Earth together, but not so harmoniously or cooperatively. These two societies are the Takers and the Leavers. The Takers can be seen as the people of "civilized" cultures and the Leavers as those of "primitive" cultures (Quinn, 39). In other words, the Takers are you and I and culture of Ishmael's pupil, while the Leavers are those people of all the other cultures besides our own lumped together (Quinn, 39). Also, according to Ishmael, a story is a scenario interrelating man, the world, and the gods, while culture can be seen as a people enacting a story (Quinn, 41). To enact a story is "to live so as to make the story a reality" (Quinn, 41). It is here where we dissect the stories that the Takers and the Leavers are enacting, as well as the effects of having the Takers and the Leavers co-inhabit our planet.

The second aspect to the Takers story, that man believes that that Earth was created for him and belongs to him, can be seen through looking at the various ways in which this culture abuses and destroys the natural resources of our planet. From air pollution, mindless use of fresh water, careless population growth, and excess use of oil it is clear that the Takers believe that the world was created for them to use as they will. I believe that it is because of the fact that the Takers do not believe any species will follow them in the course of evolution, that they have and continue to use and abuse the Earth in order to continue working toward creating their own "paradise" (Quinn, 82).

The last piece of the story that the Takers are enacting is that man is working toward conquering the world as its ultimate goal. This aspect of the Takers story is meant to lead man to this paradise of a world in which he has everything: technology, commerce, agriculture, literacy, etc (Quinn, 80). Man's conquest of the world was meant to empower him and to make mastery of his planet. This is not however, what has indeed happened.

The effects of this story that the Takers have been enacting for many, many years are numerous. First, by the Takers believing man is the end all be all for evolution, they have created a situation in which there is no responsibility or reason to protect, nurture, and preserve our planet. What is happening currently, I believe as a result of this mentality, is a conscious destruction of the plant for the well-being and greed of man because it simply does not have any consequences to him and the rest of the Takers. If there is not anyone or anything to follow, then why not use up all of the natural resources so we can have huge cars and why not cut down all of the trees to build more houses to sustain the population explosion that is occurring? This population crisis is an additional example of a devastating effect on the second aspect of the Takers story, which reads that man believes that the world is his playground and was created for him. In thinking in this fashion, the Takers have no reason to halt the rapid population growth because it was all made for him to use at his will! Within this method of thinking, the Takers continue to cultivate more and more land, to expand urban sprawl, and to further push non-Taker societies away. This leads to the serious consequence of man's goal to conquer the world, which has and continues to involve its destruction and abuse, anything but beneficial. In this conquest of the Takers, our world is being used up and because of our greed and hunger for more, we are unable to stop or reverse the deterioration of Earth's resources and gifts.

About two or three million years before the Takers began enacting their story, a different cultural group, the Leavers, had been already living out their own story, that which centers on leaving their lives in the hands of the gods, and embracing a sense of belonging to the world (Quinn, 240). Leaver societies still exist in our world today, but number very few. This, however, does not discount the huge impact their story has had and continues to have on the wider world. This cultural story of the Leavers centers on peace and harmony with the land and surrounding people. This story encompasses taking what you need from the world and giving back to it in return; helping out your neighbors when they need it; truly living knowing that their lives are simply in the hands of the gods. Enacting this story has been very efficient and successful for over two million years and, for the very few Leaver cultures remaining, continues to work today.

Despite the fact that this story promotes order and helps to create the natural balance of the world, Takers would not dare to enact this story. In their eyes, this story is a miserable way to live, one full of sacrifice and the unknowns (Quinn, 224). Takers have chosen to live their lives as though they are responsible for themselves and in doing so, have removed the idea of the gods as in control of their destiny. Because of this, there has been a severe need of the Takers to feel as though they are in complete control over their lives and when this does not go as planned, there is often anxiety, depression, and a drastic sense of fear that sets in. As this occurs, the Leavers continue to live their simple lives and in doing so, work less, eat healthier, have more time for social interactions, and create an innate sense of community that is virtually unbreakable.

In thinking about challenges relating to the story of the Leavers, only one comes to mind: the Takers. For, it has been the Takers over many, many years that have tried hard to rid of the Leavers story in order to make their own more prosperous and rich. They have done so with one main goal in mind: to take over their land and cultivate it, for agriculture has been the Takers main goal for a countless number of years. In this process, the Takers have nearly eradicated the Leavers of the world, without much remorse or second thought. The reason for this can be found within the story that the Takers have been enacting for years; one full of greed and disregard for anyone of anything but themselves in order to have more and better of everything. The last pieces of land that the Takers have not been able to get their hands on still largely belong to the Leavers. This, I am afraid, may be the case for too much longer.

Through reading Ishmael, I have been awakened to two important ideals, two stories that have made me look a bit differently at the world and at the society to which I am a part of. The different cultural stories being enacted by both the Takers and the Leavers have been perfectly illustrated in my mind, and I must say that in most ways, I identify more with the Leavers story, although it is all but impossible for me to live my life here in America in this fashion. What I have done and will continue to do though, is to remember the simplicity in the cultural story of the Leavers, for it gives me hope and helps to keep me grounded in times when the hectic nature of the story I am enacting, along with the other Takers of the world, leaves me hopeless, defeated, and overwhelmed.
________________________________________________________________________

Quinn, Daniel. Ishmael: An Adventure of the Mind and Spirit. United States of
America: Bantam Books, 1992

Mom forced to live in car with her dogs.

Interestingly, Santa Barbara has designated 12 parking lots as places where homeless with vehicles may safely (and legally) park their cars.

What is the perfect body? Who gets to decide such a thing? Most importantly, why does a person care so much about their image? These are all legitimate questions I would love to ask to our so called "mother culture". You can see these body image "standards" all across our country everyday. They are strewn across our televisions and magazines daily. " The perfect body" consisting of a 6'2 girl that has tan skin and weighs 110 pounds. Women in our culture strain and strive in unhealthy ways to achieve such a body.

Throughout my college career I have learned to think critically and logically. On one side of my thinking I realize that logically I should be happy with my body, that I am healthy and I shouldn't let these women in the media, whom I have never even met or will meet in my life, effect my self esteem or my self worth all from a glance at a picture. But then on the other side of my thinking, I realize, that I have been so exposed and saturated with the media's opinion on the perfect body that I will always be wishing. I will always be unsatisfied, although happy with my life and health at the moment.

Some blame on the media must be pointed out. I do believe that these corporate companies have in a sense taken advantage of our vulnerabilities as humans. They have created an untouchable image for the 95 percent of us that can't be super models. They focus on our so-called "flaws" which they have created and market them. So we all run out and buy the newest cloths and the newest products so we can have a taste of what it would be like to have such a body or appearance.

Yet, to dig a little deeper, it is our society that is perpetuating this cycle. The media did not come out of thin air. We have created this. It is like the Frankenstein movies, "we have created a monster!"

It's true. But I honestly believe that in the beginning we had our hearts in the right place. We wanted to create sustainability in the beginning. But people are selfish and it's easy to make a decision in the present time if it benefits you, without really, truly thinking about what kind of impact that same decision will have in the future.
I feel like we have dug ourselves a hole that we can't come back from.
And that is the reality of it. The body image the media has created is engraved in our culture.

One of the more shocking parts of this cycle is that it begins as soon as we are born. We are constantly exposed to stereotypes and visions of what we think we are supposed to look like. We never had a real chance to be an individual. Children today want whatever they see on television or whatever they read in magazines. And as they age, especially for young women, they feel the pressure to look a certain way and dress a certain way. So much emphasis is put on material things. These things are supposed to make a person feel pretty or special?

This is where I come back to being logical. This thinking is illogical. It doesn't make sense. Why do we let these multimillion-dollar companies control our self-worth with stuff? Its just stuff, it won't keep you warm on a cold night, it won't feed you or your family, and it won't give you a roof over your head. But still we are trapped in the game. Our bodies and appearance will continually be analyzed for generations to come. And the saddest part is that we made it this way.

There is also a fine line between a healthy body and a malnourished body in the name of achieving "the perfect body". Some children and adults today are starving themselves to get skinny. Some are vomiting up their food to try and get skinny. It is terrible and all in the name of "the perfect body". I don't believe there is any other place in the world that has such an epidemic on such a large scale. This means that our own culture's media has affected some people so deep that they actually put their health in danger to live up to our very own standards.

And it doesn't stop there. Plastic surgery is a fast growing market.
I'm sure everyone in our classroom today knows someone who has had a little "work done". Have we gotten to such a point that we feel the need to put our life at risk to go under the knife? There are serious risks in undergoing surgery. A person really could die from a 15-minute procedure. But we still take the risk, all in the name of "the perfect body".

It seems like nothing is organic anymore. People in our society will do anything to escape ageing or to enhance some feature on their body. Even starving yourself has become a norm. Although I have these feelings about our culture and I think them all the time and write them in this paper, I still know that I am a product.

I dye my hair, I wear the makeup, and I do wish I had a flatter stomach. These rituals I do everyday and the wishes that I have about my body will continue for the rest of my life. I live this culture everyday just like everyone else and I do want to fit in. Whether I like it of not, this is the way to do so. No one wants to be an outsider and I think that's what fuels a lot of us to do such crazy things.

All I can do is try to see the line between what will really make me happy and what is a product of my happiness. I will try to use my logic to rule out the things I know I don't need to do in the name of "the perfect body". People are flawed, in the eyes of our culture; everyone thinks they have some flaw. This will remain constant. But I just hope that I and anyone else who realizes they are in this cycle will be able to come to terms with their body and happiness. No one should strive for perfection because in that mind set they will always be let down. I think it will just have to take endurance to withstand the standards we have set for ourselves and strength in knowledge to know that we can be happy without any alterations.

Advertisers work as social agents, a social agent is defined as "those who pass on social expectations"(Andersen, m & Taylor, F "Sociology in Everyday Life; chapter 4 2008) we know that Family, Religion, Peers and Media are all strong influences in the socialization process, but how do advertisements fit into the picture. We view them all over the world, there are studies to prove you can not ignore adds, even when turning off the sound, the visual picture alone can influence us. Even on a subconscious level we still absorb the message. It has been said that "People are most influenced, when they are not paying attention at all" ("The Ad and the Ego" Boihem, H. 1997") "Advertising monopolizes our space by reaching the culture by which we live"(The Ad and the Ego" Boihem, H. 1997")

Advertisements can help to fill our minds with self doubt and can keep us at constant conflict with our selves. In particular, commercials and advertisements for beauty products are not geared to make you feel good about yourself and they are not created to make us see the good in each and everyone of us. They are urging people to consume, and they have figured out the most effective way to do so. This is to preying on what is wrong with you, what nine out of ten people are insecure about, looks and what others perceive us as. They know, no one person is perfect and by marketing on people's imperfections, they know they will find consumers. Though how does our brain interpret advertisements? Why is it some ads don't effect me at all, I can even find my self making fun of them; Though, other times I have seen an ad and thought to myself "I should probably get that, they say it works to help my hair become softer" Maybe my hair isn't soft enough. On some level the ad hit a nerve, the advertisers found something I was self conscious about and made be believe, by buying that conditioner, it would make me have "better" hair than I have now. That it would make me "happier having softer hair". That buying this product, everything will be "better". Most times after purchasing we aren't left with the feeling that we are prettier now we bought this, sometimes we are left with even more self doubt than we began with and guilt. We might have been expecting much more than what we got. And in turn, lead us once again to believe that we, alone, are not good enough.

What effect does Advertisements and Commercials have on children, there are many studies on the effects commercials have on children, One article in particular shows one impact advertisements have on young minds is; "The effects of commercials on children's perception of gender appropriate toy use" Sex Roles: A Journal of research, 2005 Pike, J & Jennings N) The article touches on the influence of stereotypical roles displayed on television, and how they can effect a way a child perceives males vs. female's. This is one of many different things that can right from the start give the wrong impression off, to a very impressionable mind .Context of a commercial has changed from what I can remember as a child; Although, I can still remember seeing the beautiful women on TV and hoping , one day I would look like her. I would cut out photos of models from magazines that I idealized; I think it gave me a false image of beauty. These days young Girls and Boys are seeing the Vitoria Secret model, and thinking "that's it "that's what beauty is. Then turning around and using this as the "standard" to live by. I can remember as I got older young men in my class, would have posters of Cindy Crawford from the "Drink Milk" ads. I would feel inferior in comparison to these models. What message is this sending a child by selling sex? Today's commercials and Advertisements have gotten increasingly inappropriate, though there has always been a level of sexism and/or exploitation of Women and Men there seems to be increasingly more adult humor and private subject matter shown on public television and broadcasted on radio; Involving; impotence, STDS and Lotions & Potions" for a better sexual experience, try this". Are these commercials children need to be constantly aware of? As adults, if you were in need of one of these products wouldn't we know where to find them? Should there be a warning before these commercials, or maybe they should be aired during times adults would be watching.

What about the inappropriate commercials for fast food, selling the sexy women washing a car in a swim suit, or using other sexual innuendos to sell a Hamburger. Recently, I watched a skit done for a Carl's junior fast food restaurant commercial. The commercial begins in the waiting room of a Plastic Surgeons office; women are sitting down waiting to speak to a Doctor. Soon, "Dr 90210" comes into the patients room and says " I have been reading your file, and it states you are interested in breast augmentation" The Doctor pretends to take a few measurements and at this point you have no idea who/what the patient is, he is speaking to. The Doctor then say's "Wow, kind of small", followed by, "Now there is nothing wrong with small breasts but I think in your case, it would build your self confidence if you went bigger" As he uses hand gestures to emphasize the size the breasts should be. Eventually, the camera pulls back and you see who the patient is, a live chicken. The commercial ends, showing a chicken sandwich with the ad" Naturally larger chicken breasts, on the new bacon Swiss crispy chicken sandwich" (Carl's junior, restaurant.) I know that this was an offensive commercial to some; I have actually spoken to other women who have seen it. I think of my self as a fairly calm and open minded person but after seeing this commercial I was genuinely offended. Sexuality, and promiscuity to sell a product, and using Women's sex appeal to sell a point is not only in- proper but is considered offensive. What is a young Girl to think by seeing this commercial is there any embarrassment at school by fellow class mates who have seen this commercial. By showing young boys and young ladies, Adult women dressing promiscuously to sell a product no matter what product is, gives off an array of negative assumptions and a false depiction of a Woman and how one should behave. Are the young boys going to grow up and believe their wife must look and behave this way? Isn't this all apart of the socialization process? And by children seeing these things as expectable behavior, going to set the pace for adulthood, and mold them into what they become as an adult. Like the saying goes, "children are like sponges" and "Socialization begins the moment a person is born" "(Andersen, M Taylor, H Sociology in Everyday life 2008)

Military recruiting, can be another form of inappropriate advertising in my eyes, one of the Army's slogans "There is strong and then there's Army strong" to me implies, you are only strong, if you join the military. Some of the words the military uses in their commercials like "Obey" and "Command" and that "there is nothing on this green earth as strong as, the Army." At one point saying, it "builds character" while in the back ground, the soldiers are carrying guns followed by explosions. This gives off a very confusing visual message, to me it says; that the way to build "character" is to join the military, that they use force and weapon to reach their objective. Many of the US Navy commercials, one slogan "accelerate your life" also used in a minivan commercial, seemed to be designed and filmed like a video game, with intense rock music playing in the back ground and vivid color, even the shots of the soldiers seem almost animated .Is this a plot to appeal to a younger generation, by making joining the Navy look like fun? Do Children need to hear these commercials, and are children more likely to join the military or make it a goal in life after seeing these commercials, or feel that you are only a "real man, or woman" if you join. There is a lot of preying on the minds of the young impressionable children taking place.

Following a string of violent events that happened in schools through out the US, Public Broadcasting developed a rating system for programs. The television company believed that children were behaving so violently towards others, due to the violent content shown on television. When Adult content, or Violent content was to be shown on television a "warning" would come across so parents could sensor what it was their children were about to watch. Why are commercials not censored, or why not have stricter guidelines to the content shown? Though commercials maybe not show any violence with in the 10-30 seconds it is aired and the chances following a commercial a child commits a violent crime against someone else is slim but what about the psychological dammage they might inflict on them selves, and the damage the commercial may have caused to their "self-esteem". "A racy commercial" can do "other damage. There are plenty of studies showing the negative effects some commercials have on children, poor self esteem being one; which, in turn can lead to eating disorders(in combination) can commercials directly lead to other disorders and depression? Like I stated earlier, the commercials that we catch in between our television shows are not priding us on how great we are, and telling us "You are perfect, there's nothing wrong with you" they are telling us there is something you need to change about yourself and "Constantly trying to meet the beauty ideals of the dominant culture can result in feelings of low-self worth and may encourage potential harmful behavior" (Andersen M.L, Sociology in Everyday life, Chapter-4 "conformity & Individuality.") So why it is commercials don't have to fall under stricter guidelines.

Many years ago, advertisers found the most effective way to reach children with ads, and by doing this not only did they reach in the parent's pockets, they created "Child consumers" who one day will turn into "Adult consumers" with much deeper pockets then their parents before them. In conclusion, It is the job of parents, consumers and people in general to make decisions wisely , when it comes to monitoring what their children watch on television, and to take into consideration it is not just programs that contain adult content or material not suitable for children, but commercials too. Explain to children what they are seeing, and take the time to teach children about confidence and self esteem, reinforce good habits. It is the job of the parent to do these things, not that of the advertisers. Children must learn to form their own opinions and ideas in life, and it is crucial that we take the time to prepare them for what they may see on television. Advertisements are designed to teach kids to" want", that they "can't live" without and that they "won't fit in" until they have what ever it is the advertiser is trying to sell. These tactics are the exact opposite of what a parent is trying to teach their children; which are, positive values, individual opinions and most of all self esteem; which, are a necessity in becoming intelligent, independent and confident adults, who will make good decisions.

Bibliography
Text Book : Andersen, L Margaret and Taylor, F Howard. 2008 Sociology in Everyday Life, Thomson Wadsworth: USA

Article: Pike, Jennifer and Nancy Jennings. 2005. Sex Roles: "The effects of commercials on children's perceptions of gender appropriate toy use."

Video: documentary, "The Ad and the Ego"
Director. Boihem, Harold. Parrallax Pictures Inc. 1997

Television commercial: Carl's Junior Restaurants: "Dr. 90210 " Carl's Junior Restaurant" dir. Morgan, Brett. Mendelsohn Zien, Advertising LLC. LA, California. 2006.

Internet: You Tube, LLC 2006 "Carl's Junior Restaurant, Dr 90210" http://www.youtube.com

Internet: You Tube, LLC "US Navy Seals Recruiting Ad" www.youtube.com
Posted by: kiquebobix

Internet: You Tube, LLC "US Army Recruiting Ad" "Army Strong, short version" www.youtube.com
Posted by: kiquebobix

Internet: Commander, Naval Special Warfare Command. 2000 Official U.S. Navy Seal web site
http://www.seal.navy.mil/seal/

Internet: Kids Health, for parents. The Nemours Foundation, 1995-2008
www.kidshealth.org

It is the sound pounding in peoples' heads that is so loud, most people have become accustomed or even deaf to it. Culture is the essence of mainstream. It is the dominant system of language, norms, folkways, mores, beliefs and values of a given society. It is imbued in children from the time they are able to be instructed. Its presence is overlooked simply because it is everywhere one looks. It is not necessarily a sinister bunch of ideas lurking in the shadows, but to realize the effects, both positive and negative, it has on the thoughts and actions of people, it deserves a closer examination. Mother Culture, which will be explored more after an understanding of culture is established, is a term used in Daniel Quinn's novel, Ishmael, to describe a peoples' early culture, their perception of this culture, and its relevance to the offspring culture they are presently a part of.

Since culture is passed on from generation to generation, the process of 'passing the torch' is a flashpoint in the continuity of culture. One of the most important tool to facilitate the transfer of culture is language. Language, including both written and vocalized words, is a complex system of metaphors for actions, objects and abstracts occurring in the physical and mental realities of a culture. It can be used to communicate and inform other people of experiences they have never experienced. And, like a game of telephone, pieces of a culture can be lost in translation and other pieces misconstrued. In George Orwell's futuristic, dystopian novel, Nineteen Eighty Four, the government is actively involved in deleting words from public usage in order to limit the thinking, and the actions that can follow thinking, of the population (Orwell, 78.) This fictional situation is in line with the Sapir-Whorf Synthesis which claims that languages determines the understanding of reality (Anderson and Taylor, 59.) The dynamic properties of language use, in combination with new discoveries and the evolution of ideas over time, ensures that culture is always changing.

It is important to note, however, that cultures resist change. People depend on culture to place them in a stratified society and the economic model a culture accepts to tell them what to do. A culture that is changing too quickly can experience cultural lag, which is a change in some parts of culture that is not happening at the same speed of other parts of the culture and culture shock, which is the disorientation of people in a rapidly changing or significantly different cultural situation. An example of cultural lag is the rejection of abortion by evangelistic and fundamentalist Christians to the legality of euthanasia in Oregon. Many Americans feel culture shock when returning to the United States after living abroad and finding their locality very different from the way they had left it.

These reactions stem from the values, beliefs and mores of a culture. The way a culture tries to organize its legal, political and economic systems has everything to do with what it views as right and wrong, true and false. The negative connotation that the word deviant carries with it wherever it goes is a manifestation of the pressure a culture puts on individuals to conform to what the majority believes and values.

Mother Culture as described in Ishmael is the perception of the history of one's culture and how it affects the people of a culture that traces its roots to the Mother Culture. In the United States, there is a tradition of individuality, independence and industriousness. These values stem from the origin of the United States in the Enlightenment Period when religious minorities found refuge here and so much of the population was comprised of refugees and immigrants. Titles of nobility did not hold any water and people were judged by their contributions of labor and knowledge to society.

In Ishmael, Quinn mostly focused on the negative aspects of Mother Culture in the United States and Western world, and the need for change. There still exists the Enlightenment idea that rationality makes humanity superior to other forms of life and there is a consequential cultural idea that nature was made only for humanity and its domination of nature (Quinn, 126-128.) Quinn, throughout the text, tried to influence the reader to escape what their Mother Culture told them so that they could see that they were as much a part of nature as the next organism and that the survival of life was dependent on humanity not trying to exterminate other life forms that did not aid in the growth of human power and population (Quinn, 130.)

Culture is not necessarily something to be eschewed. It is what allows a society to function. Of course, this is under the assumption that functionality is valued by a culture, but some axiom is needed to make normative judgments about culture. It could also be argued that biologically, humans need to be able to function to survive as humans are a pack oriented and dependent mammals, but this also makes the assumption that survival is a moral imperative, but, I digress.

With societal cooperation and harmony as a virtue, culture can help accomplish this. People living under the same cultural system are able to work together to accomplish things that they could not do alone. The building and management of cities is a perfect example of this need for cooperation. Cities such as my father's hometown of Detroit, MI are having serious issues with people who do not see eye to eye on the way things should be done. Some want political institutions to stretch out a greater social safety net for those who are falling through the cracks of poverty and drug addiction, while others claim that the population needs more respect for the American virtues of hard work and 'pulling oneself up by the bootstraps.' These issues are greatly exacerbated by racial tensions, economic recession in the auto making sector, and a mayor in the midst of a sexual scandal, demonstrating the role of cultural mores in the areas of sex and marriage.

Culture is the drive behind why societies do what they do. In order to prevent wars, civil wars, environmental destruction, crime, mass psychological dysfunction and poverty, culture must be examined to find the source of any problem. It is no surprise that the culture one is born into, and lives and breathes has a great, yet not always perceptible effect on a person. Let's take a closer look.

Bibliography

Andersen, Magaret L. and Howard F. Taylor. Sociology in Everyday Life. Thomson Wadsworth, United State of America.

Collins, Peg, Miraglia, Eric, and Law, Richard
http://www.wsu.edu/gened/learn-modules/top_culture/culture-index.html
26 May, 1999

Orwell, George. 1984. Harcourt, Inc. New York, New York. 1949.

Quinn, Daniel. Ishmael. Bantam/Turner Books. 1992.

While various systems of trade and currency exchanges have spanned the globe for thousands of years, the late 20th century and early 21st century has been witness to the advent of a bona fide global economy. Rapid advancements in industry, technology and the birth of the "information age" have had dramatic effects upon business's ability to produce and market goods and services the world over. The West, most notably the United States, has been at the forefront of the commercialized global economy, exerting an incredible influence upon fellow industrialized states and developing nations. The fashion icons, franchise logos, foods, and film industry of the United States have radically impacted the material cultures of other parts of the world. Yet the affects of the globalized commercial economy and world wide information network extend beyond the absorption of US products and services. The nonmaterial aspects of world cultures are being vastly influenced by globalization. This phenomena is being embraced and celebrated by many people the world over but is met with opposition by others who view our cultural influence to be detrimental and dangerous to their societies. My intent is to briefly explore how nonmaterial aspects of culture in nations such as those in the Middle East have been influenced by the inclusion of material culture from the West.

The globalization of the world economy has enabled the United States to market its material culture to rest of the planet. In reflection upon our nation's media influence, David Rothkop of the Foreign Policy Forum notes that "the United States dominates [the] global traffic in information and ideas. American music, American movies, American television, and American software are so dominant, so sought after, and so visible that they are now available literally everywhere on the Earth" (Rothkop, 1997). Rothkop states that our material culture influences "the tastes, lives, and aspirations of virtually every nation". The terminology which Rothkop uses in the above mentioned excerpt may be interpreted as the positive reaction with which our products are being received in other nations. However, Rothkop continues by pointing out that many nations believe that American music, movies, television and software are "corrupting". He notes that France and Canada have passed laws which "prohibit the satellite dissemination of foreign - meaning American - content across their borders and into the homes of their citizens" and Iran, China and Singapore have "aggressively sought to restrict the [Western] software and programming" that reaches their people (Rothkop, 3). According to Rothkop, in the Middle East, media from the West is often referred to as "news pollution". The efforts of the governments of Canada, France, Iran, China and Singapore to limit or ban distinctly American music, movies, television and software indicates a strong conviction on behalf of the leaders of these nations that this form of our material culture is, by and large, not acceptable. Acquisition and unlimited access to these forms of entertainment would allow for greater dissemination of Western material culture, which in many parts of the Middle East, for example, is diametrically opposed to the predominant nonmaterial cultural values prevalent in the society.

The concept that the nonmaterial cultural values of the Middle East may be seen as in conflict with our Western material culture is exemplified in Gallup Poll conducted by Richard Burkholder of Princeton, New Jersey. The question "in your own words, what do you most resent about the West?" was posed to people within eight Islamic nations; Morocco, Jordan, Turkey, Kuwait, Lebanon, Indonesia, Pakistan and Iran. Four responses from each nation were graphed, resulting in an overwhelming percentage majority claiming that what which is most resented about the West is connected to "social aspects". The category of "social aspects" is elaborated into the West as "too free, low morals, free sex, impolite to elders, [and] dislocation of family relations" (Anderson, 2008). The eight nations polled in this survey revealed elements of their nonmaterial culture in their responses. According to this study, Islamic nations highly value morality, structure, engrained rules concerning sex, respect for elders and cohesive family units. It seems as though Western material culture is perceived as not upholding these important Islamic cultural norms and values, thus is viewed as detrimental and dangerous.

The globalization of the economy and information systems has reshaped the material culture of nearly every society on earth. The material culture of the West continues to pervade the globe, often disseminating into other societies and influencing the nonmaterial culture of the people. When a society rejects various forms of the material cultural of West, it is important to recognize that this may be due to the fact that the beliefs and values which constitute the nonmaterial culture group may not reflect the meaning implied in the Western material culture.

Works Cited

Anderson, M. L. (2008). Sociology in Everyday Life. USA: Thomson Wadsworth Co.

Rothkop, D. (1197). In Praise of Cultural Imperialsim? Effects of Globalization on Culture. Retrieved April 13, 2008, from Global Policy Forum: http://www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/cultural/globcult.htm.

Hong Nuong was born and grew up in a poor farmer family in Southern Dong Thap in the Mekong Delta Region. When Nuong was a high school junior, she left school to help her mother with the farming and take care of her sick father and younger siblings. Although Nuong and her mother worked hard in the field from sunrise to sunset, they couldn't earn enough money to support the family. Gradually, Nuong's family was in heavy debt. Nuong moved to Cao Lanh and worked at a restaurant in town to earn more money. After a few months, the restaurant's owner gave Nuong the phone number of a matchmaker in Saigon who promised to find girls rich husbands from Taiwan. Nuong thought so much about it. Nuong knew it would be difficult to live with a strange husband, who didn't speak the same language, in a strange country, but it was Nuong's only way to escape from poverty. Through a matchmaker in Saigon, Nuong married Wang Liang, the thirty-seven year old Taiwanese man, and received $5,000 from him. For Nuong, the dollars from her Taiwanese husband was significantly important to her family in paying off family's debts and going to support her four younger siblings in school. But was it really better when she put her happiness in the hands of fortune and marriage decided by dollars?

One year later, Wang told Nuong to work in a bar in the small town. During the time Nuong was working at the bar, Wang realized that Nuong still looked beautiful and got attention of many men who came into the bar. Wang forced Nuong to have sex with the men who wanted her to earn more money for him. Nuong refused him at first. Wang beat Nuong badly, tied her in the corner of the house, and didn't give her anything to eat or drink until she agreed to take his orders. "He has my papers and money, so I can't do anything except following his orders to send home $50 each month," Nuong recalled after her return home.

After a year working as a prostitute, Nuong realized that she couldn't continue her disgraceful life any more. Nuong implored her mother-in-law to help her steal her papers back from Wang and finally got her to promise. One day in May of 2006, she ran away after she got her papers and $500 from her mother-in-law. Nuong finally returned home, but brought a deadly disease, HIV, in her body. Only in two years, Nuong, a charming, virtuous, and beautiful young girl, now became an emaciated woman with a deadly illness. She was barely 20 years old.

Nuong's trouble highlights the issue of marriages between Taiwanese men and Vietnamese women. Marrying a Taiwanese husband is not a new phenomenon in Mekong Delta Provinces in recent years. With the illusion that they can have a better life in a foreign country, thousands of young girls from poor and rural Mekong Delta Provinces marry Taiwanese men, mostly in the late thirties and forties. Until end of 2007, a total of more than 76,000 Vietnamese brides had come to Taiwan (Ke 1). Unfortunately, many young Vietnamese brides fall into a lucky life of domestic violence and sexual abuse, and worse than that, human trafficking. John R. Miller, director of Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons announced that many Vietnamese brides were forced into sexual industry in brothels in Taiwan after their arrival into Taiwan (4). According to the estimation of the Vietnamese Government, there were about 10 percent of Vietnamese brides in arranged marriages, which through brokers became "trafficking victims" ("Vietnam").

Basing on C.Wright Mills' distinction between troubles, which are personal problems that they experienced in their private lives, and issues, which are the problems that affect a large number of people due to particular social and historical context. Nuong's personal trouble reflects social issue of thousands of other Vietnamese girls marrying Taiwanese men. Marrying Taiwanese men has become an issue for both sides, Vietnam and Taiwan, to consider their international marriage, immigration policies, and even the process of interview for visas.

In uncovering the societal origins of this issue, "sociological imagination" is critical to examine how "social context" shape individuals' behaviors. Sociological imagination is the capacity to see individuals' experiences and difficulties under the influence of "societal patterns," and the time