Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Social and Cultural Environmental Factors That Create or Contribute to Disability


Social and Cultural Environmental Factors That Create or Contribute to Disability

Social Factors Contributing to the Construction of Disability

·      War, terrorism
·      Violent crime — shootings, rapes, knifings, beatings
·      Drug and alcohol abuse
·      Lack of basic resources — water, food, clothing, shelter
·      Tolerance of dangerous working conditions
·      Neglect of children
·      Low public safety standards
·      Degradation of the environment by contaminating water, air, food
·      Daily grind, overwork and stress of poverty
·      Lack of medical care, inappropriate medical care — prenatal care,
innoculations
·      Improved medical techniques and practices increase the numbers of people
with disabilities who live or people live long enough to become disabled
·      Increase in the pace of life that leads to accidents, stress, alcohol, and
drug abuse, increased performance/output expectations, lack of rest, and
recreation
·      Physical structure and social organization of society – physical barriers in
architecture, inadequate public transportation, communication systems,
inflexible work arrangements
·      Failure to give people the amount and kind of assistance needed to participate
fully in public sphere, especially work and school
·      Assumption that temporarily able-bodied people do not receive assistance
(for example job training, social support, child care, transportation, and
communication assistance is taken for granted)
·      These social factors affect some groups more than others because of racism,
classism, sexism, heterosexism, ageism

Cultural Factors Contributing to the Construction of Disability

·      Lack of representation and experiences of people with disabilities
·      Pervasive stereotypes of people with disabilities
·      Stigmatization of physical and mental limitations
·      The cultural attitude that physical or mental differences that deviate from
“normal,” but do not in and of themselves affect ability, are disabling (eg., facial
scarring)
·      Invisibility, stigmatization, stereotypes of disabilities and people with disabilities
feed fear, ignorance, and pity in temporarily able-bodied people
·      Assumption that disability is a personal, family problem rather than a matter
of social responsibility

The concept of social construction of disability and these examples are from Susan Wendell’s book, The
Rejected Body: Feminist Philosophical Reflections on Disability. (New York: Routledge, 1996).

Handout on Disability Issues


HANDOUT ON DISABILITY ISSUES

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 defines a “handicapped individual” as “any individual who has a physical or mental disability which for any such individual constitutes or results in a substantial handicap to employment.”

The World Health Organization distinguishes between impairments, disabilities and handicapsImpairments are physiological abnormalities.  Disabilities are limitations in functional performance stemming from impairments.  Handicaps are resulting disadvantages that may take the form of arbitrary barriers constructed, consciously or unconsciously, by society. 

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 states that someone is disabled if he or she: a) has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities b) has a record of such impairment c) is regarded as having such an impairment.

The Bureau of the US Census’ 1990 and 1991 surveys define disability as a limitation in a functional activity or in a socially defined role or task.
  •   The context of defining disabilities depends on historical and cultural issues.
  • Many definitions in the U.S. have focused on a person’s ability to work and earn a living; these were the definitions related to early rehabilitation laws.
  • The ADA’s broad, three-pronged definition of disability focuses on functional ability rather than specific medical diagnosis to extend its legal protections to the full range of persons with disabilities.  A person with a disability is defined as someone who experiences a physical or mental condition that limits the ability to perform a major life activity such as walking, breathing, seeing, hearing, thinking or working.  The second prong of the ADA definitions goes further in defining people who might be discriminated against on the basis of disability by saying that people who have a record or history of disability are also protected from discrimination under this law.  In addition, the third prong protects people who have no disability at all but who are perceived to have a disability.  The second and third prongs of the ADA definitions were established in recognitions that disability discrimination is a phenomenon unto itself and that disability discrimination results from misconceptions and prejudice which are partly or wholly unrelated to the reality of disability itself. 

Ableism is a pervasive system of discrimination and exclusion that oppresses people who have mental, emotional and physical disabilities.  Like racism, sexism, and other forms of oppression, ableism operates on individual, institutional and societal/cultural levels.  Deeply rooted beliefs about health, productivity, beauty and the value of human life perpetuated by the public and private media, combine to create an environment that is often hostile to those whose physical, emotional, cognitive, or sensory abilities fall outside the scope of what is currently defined as socially acceptable. 

There is a broad range of disabilities, encompassing a huge diversity of people, including people whose disabilities are:
  • Perceptual (such as visual and hearing impairments and learning disabilities)
  • Illness-related (such as multiple sclerosis, AIDS)
  • Physical (such as cerebral palsy)
  • Developmental (such as Down Syndrome)
  • Psychiatric (such as bipolar, chronic depression)
  • Mobility (such as quadriplegia, paraplegia)
  • Environmental (such as asthma, sensitivities to allergens and chemicals in the environment)

Challenging Assumptions About Disabilities

Disability is not inherently negative.

Becoming disabled involves major life changes including loss as well as gain, but it is not the end of a     meaningful and productive existence.

*   People with disabilities experience discrimination, segregation, and isolation as a result of other people’s prejudice and institutional ableism, not because of the disability itself.

*  Social beliefs, cultural norms, and media images about beauty, intelligence, physical ability, communication, and behavior often negatively influence the way disabled people are treated.

*     Societal expectations about economic productivity and self-sufficiency devalue persons who are not able to work, regardless of other contributions they may make to family and community life.

*  Without positive messages about who they are, persons with disabilities are vulnerable to internalizing society’s negative messages about disability.

*  Independence and dependence are relative concepts, subject to personal definition, something every person experiences, and neither is inherently positive or negative.

*  Disabled people’s right to inclusion in the mainstream of our society is now protected by law, yet they are still not treated as full and equal citizens.

 Stereotypes/Myths Such As:                                                                            Names/Words Such As:

Eternal children                                                                                                         Crippled
Evil                                                                                                                            Deformed
Depressed                                                                                                                  Insane
Deranged                                                                                                                   Drunk/Druggie
Bitter                                                                                                                         Deaf/Mute
Dependent                                                                                                                 Crazy
Burden                                                                                                                      Physically Challenged
God’s Children                                                                                                         Mentally ill
“Supercrip”                                                                                                              Survivor
Courageous                                                                                                              Retarded
Ugly                                                                                                                         Differently-able
Asexual                                                                                                                    Patient
Tragic                                                                                                                       Idiot
Shut-ins                                                                                                                    Slow
Lazy                                                                                                                         Dumb

From: Adams, Maurianne, Lee Anne Bell and Pat Griffin.  Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice.  New York: Routledge, 1997.

Monday, January 17, 2011

New Article on Feminism

This article says that the current mode of feminism is not militant enough. I think it is an interesting take on where feminism is currently at in the culture.  What do you think? - JRR

It's Time to Get Angry: All This Polite and Smiley Feminism is Getting Us Nowhere 

By Suzanne Moore

The Guardian: January 15, 2011

Children say the cutest things! Over Christmas one of mine told me that years ago she asked me why I was a feminist. It was on the way to school and I am not a morning person. Possibly she was expecting something about equal pay. Apparently I snapped: "Because men do horrible, horrible things". She was alarmed.

That was bad of me wasn't it? A little sexist? Warping the mind of a young girl. She is now grown up and thinks it's funny. It's probably not in any childcare manual and the right answer would have been stuff about wanting equal opportunities. Or I could have replied that anyone with a brain, man or woman, would see the necessity of feminism. I could have been "inclusive".

Nowadays, saying bad stuff about men is not how feminism conducts itself. We all lurve men. We are all smiley for fear of being labelled man–haters. And what is the result of this people-pleasing, ultra-feminine, crowd–sourced sexual politics? Sod all.

Reasonably sitting around waiting for equality while empowering oneself with some silicone implants does not really seem to have worked wonders, does it ladeez? Postfeminism – as personified by the Sex and the City generation – basically confused sexual liberation with shopping: a mistaken strategy even within its own market-driven terms. So we live on a permanent diet of crumbs from the table. A woman over 50 gets to be on TV! Whoopdiwhoop! It's a victory, sure, but is that all there is? It's time to wake up and smell the skinny latte.

A woman is murdered in Bristol and the response is to tell women to stay at home?! For their own safety. Though no one thinks it's a woman doing the murdering. A curfew on men would be considered a monstrous idea, even though most women live with internalised curfews anyway.

An argument about gangs of men who "groom" young women for sex becomes an argument about ethnicity and faith. Of course, these are issues to be discussed, but the central issue, surely, is the abuse of children. Turning vulnerable young girls into drug-addicted prostitutes is disgusting in any culture. But it wouldn't be a viable proposition if men did not want sex with these children. As with all arguments about prostitution, the one group we rarely hear from are the men who buy sex. The "punters".

I don't like the jargon "sex workers". We are all sex workers these days, unless we are celibate, as we are all encouraged to pursue lifelong sexiness. Most young women are endlessly groomed to be desirable after all. Yet the men who have sex with young, frightened, addled girls choose to do so. Such sex, we are told, is about power. To have sex in a car with a heroin addict is very cheap indeed. It goes on day in and day out, and of course it makes me wonder about male sexuality. As does the use of rape as a weapon of war. To say these things is not to say all men are rapists. But some are. To not say them does not make it stop.

It is as though feminism had to sex itself up to keep itself interesting. We are not hairy man-haters who bang on about domestic violence and abuse. We are fascinating women interested in fashion, relationships and true intimacy. OK, so we have a few little problems like having it all turning into doing it all, and finding a nice guy to do any of it with at all, but look on the bright side! We have got a few more female MPs, our girls are doing well at school and isn't life grand?

Well no. No it isn't. Just as the third way, or triangulation, produced a dire shutting down of political discourse, the triangulation of feminism, the third wave, as it was often called, has produced pitiful results. Part of the problem was that what many American feminists were writing in the last decade was simply superimposed onto British culture. It didn't work. We don't have a moral majority.

To see Naomi Wolf, that histrionic proponent of the third wave, pop up to demand that the women accusing Julian Assange of sexual assault and rape be named (surely they have already been shamed) is a logical conclusion of this deal. It is a dead end. Much of Wolf's work is privileged narcissism dressed up as struggle. The Beauty Myth did not have an original thought in it, but never mind, it remains the only feminist text read by many. Wolf and many of her contemporaries muddled the personal with the political to such a degree it is embarrassing. Wolf was snapped up by the media as she was beautiful – as though feminists couldn't be. Greer and Steinem were lookers, weren't they? Wolf's argument now about the anonymity of accusers in rape trials arrives on these shores a little after the Lib Dems dropped this peculiar proposal, which was never in their manifesto anyway.

Weirdly, this was really the only thing the Lib Dems have had to say about women since being in power. There are valid arguments to be made about not treating rape differently to other crimes. But the police here know many women won't come forward and all are aware of our appallingly low conviction rates.

Still, everyone seems to lose their heads around Assange. I picture Bianca Jagger washing his feet with her tears soon. Wolf actually compared him to Oscar Wilde. The similarity is that they were both in solitary confinement. Practically the same person then?

Of course, Wolf has every right to think what she likes about Assange's accusers – and to change her mind as she did about abortion – but what kind of feminism is she now espousing? I find it very difficult to know.

God, how I miss those troublesome women like Andrea Dworkin and Shulamith Firestone. They may have been as batty as hell but they had passion. And balls. They were properly furious at the horrible things men do to women. Who in their right mind, male or female, isn't? Your mother, your sister, your daughter are being told to stay inside and not complain too much. Take up knitting or vajazzling maybe?

Or take comfort from Gideon's "We are all in this together"? The last election was the most regressive for women I can remember. Women appeared as trophy wives, or not at all. The consequences of that are that this government – this new way of doing politics – is hitting women and children the hardest. Women are suffering most from the cuts that men are making. Just look at the figures.

This makes me very angry indeed. Which I know may increase "visible signs of ageing", but it's way too late now. Feminism has been dumbed down into politeness and party-political promises for far too long.

The backlash is happening in front of our eyes. Recession, of course, leads to reactionary measures and some of this reaction is taking away the few gains women have made. We can take nothing for granted. We need fire in our belly for this fight, not a bleedin' gastric bypass.

Angry Birds is the name of a game about birds and pigs. It is, as everything is now, an app. But I don't want an app. I want a movement.

Angry Birds. I am one. Join me.

View the Article Here

Casualties of Gender

I made this video short nearly 3 years ago for my fallen trans sisters. Sadly, the violence has continued unabated. While the murder rate for average people is 1 in 18,000, for trans people it is 1 in 12. The average life-span for a transgender person is 23 years. In the words of Audre Lorde: we were never meant to survive. So that is why educating yourself on this issue, and using your privilege to engender change is so important. It is literally an issue of life and death.

Quick Blog # 5

View or read one of the items in my diary on feminist anti-pornography. Do you agree with the message in the article/video?  Why or why not?  Do you believe pornography is contributing to the way men see women sexually?  Does pornography further the problems of sexism and misogyny? Why does so much pornography present women in a degrading manner and how might this impact young men who are consuming these images? Discuss whether you agree or disagree with the feminist critique of pornography...


Friday, January 14, 2011

Feminist Anti-Pornography Resources

Normally in WS 405, I do a whole unit on the many harms that come from the male-supremacist media known as pornography. As we continue our unit on sexism, heterosexism and anti-trans oppression, it is important to understand that one of the key building blocks of gender oppression is the dissemination of women-hate via pornography. Pornography plays a powerful propagandistic role in trivializing rape, abuse and torture. There have been many powerful feminists who have worked tirelessly against the pornography industry, including Gail Dines, Andrea Dworkin, Catherine MacKinnon, Diana Russell, Jackson Katz, Alice Walker, Gloria Steinem and many more. Please note that these resources below may contain explicit language or images--these may be triggering to some so please view with discretion. Click on he item to view it:


Andrea Dworkin's Testimony About the Harms of Pornography

Gail Dines Speaks on Her New Book Pornland: How Porn Has Highjacked Our Sexuality

The Website of Stop Porn Culture, a Feminist Anti-Pornography Organization

Who Wants To Be A Porn Star? : Sex and Violence in Today's Porn Industry: Slideshow

The Price of Pleasure: Porn, Sexuality & Relationships

Anti-Pornography Education and Activist Resources Website

Pornography as a Cause of Rape by Diana E. H. Russell Article

Prostitution and Male Supremacy by Andrea Dworkin Article

Dead Porn Stars Memorial

Andrea Dworkin's Speech on Pornography, Delivered in the U.K. in 1996

Thursday, January 13, 2011

Misogyny in Music Videos

The teaser for the new Kanye West music video Monster has hit the airwaves, and it is very, very disturbing. This site has started a petition and explains more about the controversy. Below I have embedded the teaser, but please be aware the images are very disturbing and possibly triggering, so viewer discretion is advised. http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/prevent-official-release-of-kanye-wests-women-hating-monster-video/

Quick Blog # 4: Whip My Hair

As we discuss sexism and media imagery, I thought for Quick Blog # 4 I would have folks write their response to the song and video by Willow Smith entitled Whip My Hair. Do you think she provides a good role model to girls? What about the lyrics to the song and the images in the video? Does anything about it trouble you or suggest sexualization? How does race intersect with this? Remember it is okay to have mixed feelings about the video, too. I look forward to reading you weigh in on what has become a pop culture phenomenon. In a much more blatant example, a mother dresses her 2-year-old up in Madonna cone bra and makes her perform in a pageant: http://www.revolutionofrealwomen.com/site/index.php?view=entry&year=2011&month=01&day=13&id=112%3Apageant-mom-turns-daughter-into-sexy-mini-madonna&option=com_lyftenbloggie&Itemid=3

The Top 10 Reasons fore the Wage Gap Between Women and Men


Top 10 Reasons for the Wage Gap
 
1:   Wage Secrecy Hurts Women

Part of the problem is that wage data are largely kept secret in America, so women and minorities can be underpaid without knowing it. Employers frequently have policies that forbid workers from discussing their salaries, even though these policies are unfair and sometimes unlawful. Yet corporate cultures continue to intimidate workers by making it taboo to discuss salary, even among trusted co-workers.

In addition, because women often don't know what a job truly pays, she can undervalue herself when negotiating a new salary (and that can label her as an underachiever). So not knowing about wage discrepancies can perpetuate them.

2:   Suing is Not a Practical Remedy
     
Taking an employer to court under the Equal Pay Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, or appropriate state laws is an option out of reach for many women. "I don't have $250 for an initial consultation with an attorney," said one woman who contacted NCPE. Because awards are severely limited in Equal Pay Act cases, there is a lack of incentive for attorneys to accept cases.

In addition, pursuing an equal pay case can wreak havoc on the personal lives and finances of the plaintiffs. Employers often fight back aggressively and ruin an employee's credibility as they seek to defend the company. Retaliation against women who file claims is common. NCPE has talked with plaintiffs who say their supervisors have turned hostile, their offices were moved to undesirable locations, that negative letters appeared in their personnel files, that their gynecological medical records were subpoenaed in an attempt to intimidate them, or that they were fired outright. This kind of treatment can last years while a case weaves its way through the legal process. Even if a woman wins her Equal Pay Act case, she may be labeled a troublemaker and have a hard time finding another job within the industry.

3:   When You Take Home Less, You'll Stay Home More
     
Given their lower earnings, women are usually the parent who takes time off to raise small children. That means they are out of the workforce for a few years, which lowers their earnings when they return.

But not all women are taking time off - many families rely on two paychecks and cannot afford for one parent to stay home. A 1992 study by the international executive search firm Korn/Ferry found that, of women in senior management positions in Fortune 1000 industrial and 500 service companies, only a third had taken a leave of absence, and most took fewer than six months off.

Shouldn't families be able to have pay equity and children?

4:   Even if They're Equal In Value, Women's Jobs Pay Less
     
Sometimes the jobs dominated by women in a company are not valued in the same way that men's jobs are. Studies have shown that the more women and people of color fill an occupation, the less it pays. Using a point factor job evaluation system, the state of Minnesota found that the "women's jobs" paid 20 percent less on average than male-dominated jobs, even when their jobs scored equally on the job evaluation system. (Pay equity adjustments were phased in over four years at a cost of 3.7 percent of overall payroll.)

5:   Market Forces Are Not Eliminating Discrimination 
     
Some say market forces will eliminate salary inequities, yet it has been 41 years since the Equal Pay Act was signed into law and 40 years since the Civil Rights Act was signed into law. Still, discrimination exists. If we had relied on market forces to implement fairness, we never would have needed the Civil Rights Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, or the Americans with Disabilities Act. Market forces do not overcome bias in the workplace. Bigoted employers will pay more to work with white people, for example. Even Alan Greenspan has acknowledged that too often, companies practice discrimination, which hurts America's economy.
   
6:   Discrimination is Intangible, But It's There
    
Discrimination is almost never found in the form of a smoking gun - like the Texaco tapes, for example, in which senior executives at the company were heard making racial slurs. Instead, discrimination takes a more subtle yet pervasive form. For example, in the class action sex-discrimination suit filed against Merrill Lynch, female employees complained that the accounts of retiring employees, walk-ins, and other lucrative networking opportunities were steered towards the men in the company. Another typical concern is that women are not offered career shaping assignments or spots on important committees. NCPE often hears from women who say there is an "old boys network" or glass ceiling at work. When women have trouble advancing, in a company, they can't gain the experience needed to lead.

7:   Old Stereotypes Die Hard
     
In this day and age, women are still told they don't make as much as the men because the men have families to support. Women are not working for pin money. They are supporting America's families. As one plaintiff recounted, a manager told her, "You don't need pay equity, you're married." There are also stereotypes about what kind of work is appropriate for women, which hinder women's advancement in some fields currently dominated by men.

8:   Not all Jobs are Open to Women
     
Over half of all women are concentrated in the broad categories of sales, clerical, and service jobs. Women can have a hard time breaking into the male-dominated jobs, as evidenced through Department of Labor audits of federal contractors. For example, in 1999, Berkline Corporation and its parent company, Lifestyle Furnishings International, agreed to pay $300,000 in back pay for refusing to hire women as woodworkers. Kohler Corporation, a national plumbing hardware manufacturer in Wisconsin, agreed to pay nearly $900,000 to 2000 women who were not hired because of their gender. When women do break into male-dominated jobs, sometimes they experience hostile work environments and find little support for their presence there.

9:   Companies Fail to Address Unfair or Haphazard Pay Practices
    
Why won't employers address the issue on their own? Perhaps they are worried about future liability. Part of it may be psychological -- many employers don't want to believe they are discriminating or that they have tolerated discrimination. But because our socialization in America is not free from sex or race bias, it can lead to undervaluing women and minorities on the job. Employers need to put their fears aside. Private sector compensation experts can help to develop a fair pay system that is phased in quietly over time. A written pay policy will show workers that the system is based on objective criteria.

10:   Current Laws Are Not Strong Enough
     
Put simply, current laws prohibiting wage discrimination need to be strengthened. The Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act are important laws, but they are hard to enforce, and legal cases are extremely difficult to prove and win. Because enforcement of the laws is complaint driven and most of the information needed to prove a complaint is held by employers, these laws lack the ability to completely rid America of discriminatory pay practices. In addition, the Equal Pay Act does not allow women to file class-action lawsuits, and it provides very insubstantial damages.

From: The National Committee on Pay Equity

Misogyny Set to Music

Misogyny – Set to Music – May Alter Teen Behavior

By Amanda Paulson, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor / August 8, 2006

CHICAGO

When it comes to the sexuality of music, the battle between the old and young has raged for decades.
Blues was once "the devil's music." The Rolling Stones had to sing a sterilized "Let's Spend Some Time Together" to get radio play.

But, as always, the previous generations' complaints over musical tastefulness might now appear almost quaint. A new study poses serious questions about more recent music that isn't just sexual, but also degrading and misogynistic.

According to a study published Monday by the RAND Corporation, a nonpartisan research group, teenagers who spent more time listening to music with lyrics that objectify women or praise men for their voracious sexual appetites were more likely to become sexually active earlier in their youth. Previous studies have linked sex at a young age with higher risks of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

It's the latest, and among the most rigorous, studies in a growing body of research that suggests media have a significant impact on young people's behavior – a claim that ignites controversy when coupled with calls for censorship or restrictions.

When it comes to counteracting a harmful message, communicating with teenagers about appropriate behavior, experts say, can be more useful than stopping the music.

"Kids are exposed to these sorts of messages not just in music but in culture in general," says Steven Martino, a RAND psychologist and lead researcher on the study. "It's better to have them be critical thinkers than have them just be sheltered teens."

Still, Dr. Martino says, the study left little doubt in his mind that the music's message has an effect.
He and other researchers surveyed 1,461 adolescents in 2001 about their sexual experiences and related factors. The researchers followed up with similar questions in 2002 and 2004.

Throughout the study, participants reported how often they were listening to 16 artists chosen by the study's authors based on their popularity. In every case – across racial and gender lines, and after accounting for factors like a heightened interest in sex or more permissive parents – increased exposure to sexually degrading lyrics (though not merely sexual ones) led to increased sexual activity.

Parents and psychologists have long worried about the harm not only of music, but also of TV, movies, and video games. After the Columbine High School massacre in 1999, a few groups decried the violence depicted by rock singer Marilyn Manson's lyrics. Some went so far as to blame the singer for the attacks. More recently, the governor of Illinois tried unsuccessfully to ban sales of violent video games to minors.

Free-speech proponents have reacted angrily to suggestions of censorship, sometimes citing the fact that all individuals process information differently and can normally distinguish between what they're watching or listening to and their own behavior.

But more sophisticated studies, like the one published by RAND, are starting to tease out which aspects of media affect kids, and in what ways.

"This uses a more precise methodology than previous studies have, particularly around the issue of content," says Michael Rich, director of the Center on Media and Child Health at Harvard University. "We as a society have lulled ourselves into thinking that if it's entertainment it doesn't affect us. There's this artificial dichotomy we've drawn between education and entertainment – education is at school, and then kids turn their brains off when they go home and listen to misogynistic lyrics."

Still, Dr. Rich and others agree that censorship – whether at home or on a social level – is a losing game. Rather than ban music, they say, parents should be aware of what their kids are listening to and willing to have conversations that put it in context.

"You can listen with them, and then say 'What do you think of that line?' " says James Steyer, the founder of Common Sense Media, which conducts media ratings and reviews. "It may be a little embarrassing, but it's a great way to have a conversation with kids about smart sexuality."

Mr. Steyer is quick to say that media shouldn't be punished – it's very possible, he says, to appreciate the beat and rhythm of a song and reject the lyrics' message. But he thinks it's naive to assume music has no effect. "More and more, it's going to be important to look at media through the lens of public health," he says.

Still, such studies are notoriously difficult to conduct and are often inconclusive – merely finding an association, for instance, doesn't necessarily mean that one activity leads to another. Even Martino acknowledges there are still variables his team might not have accounted for. While it's impossible to prove that lyrics were responsible for his study's observations, Martino says he hopes that by tracking the adolescents over time – as well as by accounting for other factors such as an expressed desire to have sex at an earlier age – the study has demonstrated a strong causal connection.

Determining which lyrics were degrading and which were merely sexual constituted another challenge. Two separate researchers made that subjective decision and generally agreed. They looked for lyrics that either objectified women, viewed men as insatiable studs, or treated sex as an inconsequential game.

"These kids are teenagers, and ... it would be wrong to say we shouldn't expose these kids to sex," says Martino. "But it's another thing to expose these kids very consistently to the message that women are sexual objects."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0808/p01s04-ussc.html
 

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Quiz on Immigration


Quiz on Immigration

Write “True” or “False” on the line next to each statement below:

1)______There are over 30 million immigrants in the United States, the highest number in its history.

2)______One in five children in the U.S. is the native-or foreign-born child of an immigrant.

3)______Educators and other school personnel do not have to report undocumented students and their   families.

4)______ Immigrants from the following 10 countries constitute 50% of documented people coming to the U.S.: Mexico, India, Philippines, China, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, Vietnam, Colombia, Guatemala, and Russia.

5)______Six states (New Jersey, New York, California, Illinois, Florida, and Texas) have been the major destinations for immigrants.

6)______Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Washington, Nevada, and Mississippi are among several other states that are seeing growth in the immigrant population.

7)______The United States takes in only 1% of the world’s immigrants.

8)______ Immigrants are three times as likely as U.S.-born residents to start small businesses and small businesses account for up to 80% of new jobs in the U.S.

9)______Immigrants contribute more than $400 billion to the U.S. economy every year.

10)______Undocumented immigrants pay more than $300 million in federal taxes.

11)______Documented and undocumented immigrants are entitled to constitutional rights under the law.

12)______Immigrant families use benefits at lower rates than citizen families.

13)______Immigrants fill labor shortages in essential segments of the society.

14)______The proportion of immigrants with bachelor’s or postgraduate degrees is higher than the proportion of the native labor force.


True/False Quiz on Immigration: Answers and References

Note: All statements are True.

1) There are over 30 million immigrants in the United States, the highest number in its history.  Immigrant numbers are at a peak, yet immigrants as a percentage of the U.S. population are not. The number of immigrants is larger than ever before in U.S. history — and the whole population is also much bigger than it used to be. The percentage of immigrants was highest around the turn of the 20th century. During the peak immigration period from 1870 to 1920, nearly 15% of the U.S. population was foreign-born; today that figure is around 12% (Immigration Policy Institute, 2004; Simon, 1995).

2) One in five children in the U.S. is the native- or foreign-born child of an immigrant.  One in five children enrolled in kindergarten through 12th grade (K-12) has at least one parent born outside the United States. The “children of immigrants” population (the second-generation) has increased rapidly, tripling from 6% in 1970 to 19% in 2000. By the year 2010, children of immigrants will represent 25% of the K-12 student population. Between 1970 and 2000, the number of children in K-12 who speak Spanish at home doubled from 3.5 to 7 million, while the number of children speaking the numerous Asian languages tripled from 0.5 to 1.5 million (Capps & Passell, 2004).

3) Educators and school-personnel do not have to report undocumented students and their families.  School officials have no duty to report people even if they know they are undocumented. It is the job of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office to investigate and find immigrants who are here illegally. Schools cannot report children unless they are required to by subpoena or have parental permission (Plyler v. Doe , 457 U.S. 202 [1982].

4) Immigrants from the following 10 countries constitute 50% of documented people coming to the United States: Mexico, India, Philippines, China, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, Vietnam, Colombia, Guatemala, and Russia.  Over half of all new legal immigrants arrived from just 10 countries. The 10 countries of origin were Mexico (116,000), India (50,000), the Philippines (45,000), China (41,000), El Salvador (28,000), the Dominican Republic (26,000), Vietnam (22,000), Colombia (15,000), Guatemala (14,000), and Russia (14,000). The last three countries were newcomers to the top 10 list in 2003, while Cuba, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Ukraine fell out of the top 10 (Immigration Policy Institute, 2004).

5) Six states (New Jersey, New York, California, Illinois, Florida, and Texas) have been the major destinations for immigrants.  Six states remain key destinations for many new legal immigrants. Sixty three percent of immigrants live in six states — California, New York, Texas, Florida, New Jersey, and Illinois. There was a slight decline in the percentage of immigrants heading to California, Texas, and Florida, with increases for other states (Capps & Passell, 2004).

6) Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Washington, Nevada and Mississippi are seeing growth in the immigrant population in their state.  Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Washington, Nevada and Mississippi are among the several other states that are seeing growth in the immigrant population. New growth states are defined as those where the immigrant population grew faster than in Texas during the 1990s (At 91 percent, Texas was the fastest growing of the six major destination states).  Despite rapid growth, many of these states still have relatively small, total immigrant populations. Unlike the major destination states, the immigrant population in the new growth states is disproportionately made up of recent arrivals—almost 60 percent arrived in the 1990s, most since 1995 (Capps & Passell, 2004).

7) The United States takes in only 1% of the world’s immigrants.  While the United States numerically has the largest immigrant population of any country in the world, it is not even among the top 10 countries when immigrant population is counted as a percentage of total population.  The U.S. takes in fewer than 1% of the world’s immigrants each year. North America and Western Europe combined take in 55% of the world’s immigrants and fewer than one third of the world’s refugees.  In 2000, the United States had an immigrant population of about 35 million, or about 12% of the country’s total population. The top 10 countries range from 25% to 74% composed of immigrants (Capps & Passell, 2004).

8) Immigrants are three times as likely as U.S.-born residents to start small businesses, and small businesses account for up to 80% of new jobs in the U.S.  Immigrants have to prove they can provide for themselves before entering the country, and statistics show they are more likely than U.S.-born citizens to be employed, to save, and to start businesses. Immigrants do not cause native unemployment, even among low-paid or minority groups.  Many studies, using different methodologies show there is no empirical data to support the idea that immigrants are taking jobs from native-born Americans (Hate-free Zone).

9) Immigrants contribute more than $400 billion to the U.S. economy every year.
See answer for 10.

10) Undocumented migrants contribute significantly to the U.S. economy.  While undocumented immigrants pay more than $300 million in federal taxes, they rarely receive refunds because many are afraid to file. Documented immigrants account for nearly 15% of the total civilian work force. Additionally, the total net benefit to the Social Security system, if immigration levels remain the same, will be nearly $500 billion for the 1998–2022 period. Most studies have shown that immigrants pay at least $28 million more in taxes than they receive in services. Over their lifetimes, an average immigrant and his or her children are estimated to pay about $80,000 more in taxes than they receive in services (Hate-free Zone; Justice for Immigrants websites – see below).

11) Documented and undocumented immigrants are entitled to constitutional rights under the law. The Supreme Court has ruled that everyone in the United States regardless of immigration status—is entitled to the fundamental constitutional rights. However, these principles are not always upheld by the executive and legislative branches of the federal government. For example, if an undocumented immigrant is facing deportation, he/she is entitled to constitutional rights such as a hearing before a judge with federal review, representation by a lawyer (although the government
may not pay for one), the opportunity to examine the evidence against them and language interpretation, among other things (Simon, 1995.)

12) Immigrant families use benefits at lower rates than citizen families.  Since the 1970s when immigration was finally opened up to all parts of the world with the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act, immigrants have contributed more to the public coffers in taxes than they have withdrawn in welfare services. Low-income immigrant families with children have lower use rates for Temporary Assistance as compared to low income citizen families with children (8.7% versus 11.6% ). It is a myth that most want to come to the U.S. because of our public assistance.  In reality, welfare does not drive migration patterns. Between 1995 and 2000, the number of immigrant families with children grew four times faster in states with the least generous “safety nets” for immigrants (such as Arkansas and Texas) than it did in states with more generous safety nets (such as California and Massachusetts). The most recent available data (for 1995) show that each year, an average immigrant family put about $2,500 (1995 dollars) into the pockets of natives from this excess of taxes over public costs (Simon, 1995).

13) Immigrants fill labor shortages in essential segments of the economy, rather than taking jobs away from Americans.  Foreign-born workers tend to complement the needs of the native-born workforce, filling niches at both the high and low ends of the labor market.  At the high end, certain industries recruit foreign workers who have qualifications that are in low supply in the American economy, such as highly developed skills and training in the technology field. At the low end of the spectrum, immigrants do essential work in jobs that are undesirable to the native-born for reasons of low wages and demanding working conditions. Immigrant workers are especially highly represented
in the fields of private household services and farming, forestry, and fishing. Workers in these two occupational groups are the least well paid of all major groups tracked in the U.S. census, and since 1994, the native-born population attracted to such low-skill jobs has declined from 9 million to 7.6 million.

14) The proportion of immigrants with bachelor’s or postgraduate degrees is higher than the proportion of the native labor force.  Immigrants also have increased rapidly as a proportion of the pool of U.S. scientists and engineers. Scientific professionals are especially valuable for promoting the increased productivity and growth of the economy (PBS, (n.d.)  Simon, 1995).

Sources

Capps, R., & Passell, J. (2004). Describing immigrant communities. Foundation
of Child Development and Urban Institute: Washington DC: Foundation of Child Development and Urban Institute.

Simon, J. (1995). Immigration: The demographic and economic facts. http://www.cato.
org/pubs/policy_report/pr-immig.html

Immigration Policy Institute. (2004). Immigration facts. October 2004, no.9 www.
migrationpolicy.org/pubs/fact_sheets.php

PBS. (n.d.). The City - La Ciudad, myths and realities http://www.pbs.org/itvs/thecity/
immigration1.html

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).

Hate-free Zone. (n.d.) http://www.hatefreezone.org/index.asp?name=immigrationmyths

Justice for Immigrants. (2005). http://www.justiceforimmigrants.org/myths.html

© Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice, Second Edition, Routledge, 2007

Terms Dealing with Religious Oppression


Religious Oppression: refers to the systematic subordination of minority religions (in the United States) such as Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Native American spiritualities, and Sikhs, by the dominant Christian majority. This subordination is a product of the historical tradition of Christian hegemony and the unequal power relationships of minority religious groups with the Christian majority. In the United States, religious oppression is supported by the actions of individuals (religious prejudice), social institutions (religious discrimination), and cultural and societal norms and values associated with Christian hegemony. Through religious oppression, Christianity and its cultural manifestations function to marginalize, exclude, and deny the practices and institutions of religious minority groups the rights, privileges and access held out for all U.S. citizens.

Christian Hegemony: refers to a religious worldview that publicly affirms Christian observances, holy days, sacred spaces, at the expense of those that are not Christian. Christian hegemonic culture normalizes Christian values as intrinsic to an American public and political way of life. Christian norms are termed hegemonic in that they depend only on “business as usual.”

The Establishment Clause: is the part of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that prohibits the federal government from establishing or supporting any single religion or religious denomination or sect. It is generally referred to as
the separation of church and state.

The Free Exercise Clause: is the part of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that protects the free exercise of religion.

Islamophobia: is used to refer to the fear or hatred of Islam and its adherents that translates into individual, ideological and systemic forms of prejudice, discrimination, and oppression of Muslims and those thought to be Muslims

(Above definitions from Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice.)

Antisemitism:  (also spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism) is prejudice against or hostility towards Jews often rooted in hatred of their ethnic background, culture, and/or religion. In its extreme form, it "attributes to the Jews an exceptional position among all other civilizations, defames them as an inferior group and denies their being part of the nation[s]" in which they reside.  A person who holds such views is called an "antisemite".  Antisemitism may be manifested in many ways, ranging from individual expressions of hatred and discrimination against individual Jews to organized violent attacks by mobs, or even state police, or military attacks on entire Jewish communities. Extreme instances of persecution include the First Crusade of 1096, the expulsion from England in 1290, the Spanish Inquisition, the expulsion from Spain in 1492, the expulsion from Portugal in 1497, various pogroms, the Dreyfus Affair, and perhaps the most infamous, the Holocaust by Nazi Germany.  While the term's etymology might suggest that antisemitism is directed against all Semitic peoples, the term was coined in the late 19th century in Germany as a more scientific-sounding term for Judenhass ("Jew-hatred"), and that has been its normal use since then. (Antisemitism definition from Wikipedia)

The Ted Williams Story Does Not Change Structural Classism

Below is a Blog Post I wrote about the recent media spectacle about Ted Williams, and the case's relationship to socioeconomic status, capitalism and classism in the U.S.   - Joelle Ruby Ryan

I struggle with writing this Blog.  I certainly don’t want to rain on anyone’s parade.  The Ted Williams story has taken the country by storm this past week.  Ted Williams was a homeless man from Ohio when someone took a YouTube video of him and his “golden voice.”  Williams had done voiceover work in his past and been successful but then fell into poverty and homelessness due to, among other things, substance abuse.  The YouTube video went viral and became an Internet  sensation, and then the mainstream media picked it up, and the rest, as they say, is history.  Williams is enjoying a new-found ride of celebrity and potential economic enrichment.  So what’s wrong with this feel-good public-interest story?

Well nothing, per se.  If William’s life dramatically improves from this, I think it is terrific.  For real.  The problem is more about what the media sensation conceals.  You see, it is no surprise that many people in America love a rags-to-riches story.  It is one of those deeply engrained cultural narratives that countless folks have clung to.  But how common is this narrative, really?  And why does the media spotlight such cases when the vast majority will never have such a meteoric rise up the social and economic ladder?

Classism refers to the institutional, cultural, and individual set of practices and beliefs that assign differential value to people according to their socio-economic class; and an economic system which creates excessive inequality and causes basic human needs to go unmet. (Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice.)  Within the capitalist framework of the U.S., people suffer mightily due to classism.  The gap between the haves and the have-nots grows exponentially wider.  Higher education is harder and harder to access.  People work more to make less.  Millions of people live in this society without any health insurance.  Approximately two million people in this nation are homeless.  While the government bails out the elite banks and companies and create more corporate welfare, the welfare of the human population is lost.  Over the past thirty years, beginning with the infamous Ronald Reagan, the human social safety net that had begin to be sewn in this country has been systematically shredded to bits.  It is not a good time to be poor, working-class or even middle-class.  There is tremendous anxiety about economic futures, and as well there should be.

So, in the face of this economic collapse comes Ted Williams, and the media globs on to him in its typically fervent way.  But Ted Williams doesn’t change the fact that the system, as it is constructed, is inherently unfair to lower-class people.  It doesn’t change the fact that people’s entire lives are destroyed by classism and by the vicious system of capitalism that so many others love to wave their flag to.  It doesn’t change the fact that many American families have been in poverty for generations, and that it has become ever more elusive to even imagine themselves climbing out of that state of poverty.  It doesn’t change the fact in the past few years we have been living through one of the worse red scares in this nation’s history, nor that any attempt to challenge classism is labeled waging “class warfare” by the rich and the powerful and the conservative.  It doesn’t change the fact that attempts by our President to make change, like in health care, has been met with the most ungodly amount of opposition from everyday citizens, as well as the medical, insurance and pharmaceutical industries.  It doesn’t change the particular and salient ways that poverty disproportionately affects People of Color, Women, People with Disabilities, Transgender/Transsexual People and other marginalized groups.  It doesn’t change the fact that the American Dream, if it ever existed at all, is now nothing but a long-lost myth, and that the Myth of Meritocracy continues unabated, even as it is rarely acknowledged or even discussed.  It doesn’t change the fact that class is STILL the green elephant in the living room and that from youth on up we are taught that is gauche to talk about money, salaries and the costs of things.

The vast majority of poor and working-class folks will not be saved a la Ted Williams.  They will continue to deal with the reality of the American class system and its never-ending brutality.  This is not to say that they are victims or that they have no agency.  Nor is it to completely negate the importance of taking some sense of personal responsibility.  It is simply to say that the problem of class in America requires systemic, structural change on multiple levels: individual, familial, community, institutional and cultural.  So if the Ted Williams story gives some peeps more hope or makes them feel good—that’s great.  But let us not be fooled that this is in any way a stand-in for prolonged, militant political struggle.  We have too much work to do, and the people suffering from classism have been waiting for far too long.