Reflection: "What are the Aims of Diversity?"

What are the Aims of Diversity?

To increase our Knowledge. This means utilizing an open minded approach when encountering situations that are unknown and new to you. This also means to use a nonjudgmental mindset when coming upon these new situations, so that you are able to take in information objectively.

To utilize Methods to both increase our knowledge about diversity, as well as be a model and teach others how to be a citizen that isn't just tolerant of others but accepting. This includes not being color blind but seeing differences for what they are, and accepting those differences as equal to everyone else's differences.

It is to have Perspective, and to think about how we all have been discriminated against and how awful that feels. To remember this as the commonality that everyone shares, and to use that common thread to instill compassion throughout people. I honestly want to believe that people aren't born to discriminate against each other and that discriminatory behaviors are taught, not natural.

It takes Vision to see how society can be changed, and to have the courage to be part of the positive evolution. Whether you have time, resources, or commitment to the cause, anyone can join the team to increase the acceptance of diversity.

What I learned from this course is that as try as we may, we cannot categorize people effectively. Thankfully that is the case because there is no reason for this! We are all multifaceted and multiracial, whether you are black, while, Native American, etc. We all come from a mix of people, our world is too old and people have been so integrated that is is unlikely anyone has a "pure" lineage (whatever that means!).

The various portions of Rosenblum's and Travis' (2012), Meaning of Difference: American Constructions of Race, Sex and Gender, Social Class, Sexual Orientation, and Disability, outlined separate groups of people that have been discriminated against over the years, with an eye to the U.S. This information is so important to pass along from generation to generation, so we learn from the mistakes of the past so we can have a healthier and happier future, that considers everyone different and equal.

Rosenblum, K. E., & Travis, T. C. (2012). The Meaning of Difference: American Constructions of Race, Sex and Gender, Social Class, Sexual Orientation, and Disability (ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

"What Can We Do? Becoming Part of the Solution," "In Defense of Rich Kids," and "Uprooting Racism: How White People Can Work for Racial Justice," (Rosenblum and Travis, 502-520).

My first reaction within seconds of reading the article "In Defense of Rich Kids" by William Upski Wimsatt (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 508-511) was definitely negative. Though Wimsatt is pointing out that people with money didn't chose to be rich and that if you are, why not be a "cool rich kid" and donate your money to just causes (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 510)? Even so, I can't help by feeling "ew" about this article. He writes like a "bro" and completely draws a line between rich people and poor people (in his article, there wasn't an in between).

Again, he talks about the charities he supports and how he is trying to engage other people like him to use their money for good. I realize money is helpful when trying to promote change. But to think that it is the end all is sad to me. Maybe this is because I am from a working class family and the subtle chip on his shoulder throughout this entire article completely irked me.

"...it's easy to criticize my actions when you don't have much money..." (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 508). Maybe I wasn't thinking about criticizing you before but after reading that part, I want to now! Again, yes, he wants to help charities that need to get their feet off the ground but I guess the difference is this: he is using his money to help which he realizes he will get more and more of, while others use their very lives and energy to do something. Those are the people I want to celebrate, not the money man.

In the end, I don't think it is the message that Wimsatt gave, it was his delivery. Maybe a more humble approach would make the lowly 99% want to engage with him more.

In the following reading "Uprooting Racism: How White People Can Work for Racial Justice" (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 512-516), the authors offer concrete steps about how to overcome adversity (such as racism).

One of them is money....ok, Wimsett won that one.

Additionally, white people can be a "strong ally" by offering "respect...speak up...talk to other white people...interrupt jokes and comments...[and] take risks" (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 513). That makes sense and seems pretty obvious.

Have you ever played the game "Cards Against Humanity?" It is very inappropriate and I can't decide if I actually can play it without feeling absolutely terrible. It has become increasingly popular and I am honestly a little shocked by its content. It's just making it ok to say racist things and that seems like taking a step back; I don't think laughing at the discrimination of people is ever appropriate.

"The challenge we face is to change patterns of exclusion, rejections, privilege, harassment, discrimination, and violence that are everywhere in this society existed for hundreds (or...thousands) of years. We have to begin by thinking about the trouble and the challenges in new and productive ways...." (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 502).

The above quote is refreshing, after having to write about rich providing support and about how money will change how things change. Wimsatt's flaw is that he is sticking with a corrupt system and playing by its rules. To really change society for the better, he should focus on renewing the very system that gave him his wealth.

If we want to really start change, do we have to play by the system's game or should we deviate, to create a new "game" and a new way of interacting with one another?

Rosenblum, K. E., & Travis, T. C. (2012). The Meaning of Difference: American Constructions of Race, Sex and Gender, Social Class, Sexual Orientation, and Disability (ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

"The Biology of the Homosexual," "A New Paradigm for Understanding Women's Sexuality and Sexual Orientation," and "The Heterosexual Questionnaire" (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 147-167).

"...samesex desire is simply not comparable to questions like eye color, hair color, or height....for how are we to measure the "occurrence" (or non-occurrence) of a "trait" that is itself relational, subtle, and subject to varied modalities and modulations?" (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 155-156).

"...heterosexuals are normal and mentally healthy but homosexuals are abnormal....the consensus among psychiatrists and psychologists is that homosexuality is not a form of pathology nor is it associated with mental illness..." (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 158).

To categorize people is obviously a popular method of making sense of differences, though categorizing is certainly limiting and can never encompass the vast array of individuals found throughout the planet. Scientists have wondered how to categorize people who are homosexual by asking: what makes them homosexual? Research has be done throughout the 20th century but is unsuccessful in it's finding to determine a "gay gene" or a scientific explanation for a person identifying as homosexual or heterosexual (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 147).

Another method to discover differences between women who identify as heterosexual or homosexual was to figure out how femininity might differ between the two groups (again, a focus on categorizing people). Previously, it was thought that women who were homosexual were ill, and that they may also display less feminine characteristics compared to heterosexual women (Rosenblum and Travis, 2012). This, of course, is completely untrue and the "Illness Model," Inversion Model," and "Biological Models" have all been challenged and none have held any truth when trying to differentiate women (Rosenbmul and Travis, p. 158-159).

The Heterosexual Questionnaire, found at the end of this portion of Rosenblum's and Travis' (2012) book, The Meaning of Difference: American Constructions pf Race, Sex and Gender, Social Class, Sexual Orientation, and Disability, is an interesting spin on how people who identify as homosexual may feel when receiving a survey about why they might be homosexual. After viewing it, it simply seems ridiculous to pose those kinds of questions to anyone, as the questions lend themselves to making the responder feel like they have done something wrong.

The theme of these three readings is that sexuality is fluid and there's no need to categorize people or find out the biological reason for sexual orientation. By looking for a reason, it insinuates there is a problem to be fixed. If people are happy and healthy than what does it matter? "On standardized measures of personal adjustment and psychological well-being, gay and lesbian couples, and parents are comparable to their heterosexual counterparts" (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 158).

Rosenblum, K. E., & Travis, T. C. (2012). The Meaning of Difference: American Constructions of Race, Sex and Gender, Social Class, Sexual Orientation, and Disability (ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

"Framing Class: Media Representations of Wealth and Poverty in America," "Loot or Find: Fact or Frame?," and " The Protean N-Word" (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 448-474).

"...the media either play class differences for laughs or sweep the issue of class under the rug so important distinctions are rendered invisible" (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 448).

"The most relevant and dominant frame is color blindness, or the belief that race is not a factor in how we make sense of the world" (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 455).

"Over the years, nigger has become the best known of the American language's many racial insults, evolving into the paradigmatic slur....That is why Arabs are called "sand niggers," Irish "the niggers of Europe"..." (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 466).

In the United States, people can be influenced by the media to a fault. People allow media to teach them social norms without engaging in critical thinking to determine if the media is correct or not. Many people of the U.S. watch the morning and/or nightly news for the day's events. It is easy for these newscasts to alter public opinion.

Television shows sometimes juxtapose different classes of people but instead of focusing on the evident problem of class inequality, the show it turned into an opportunity to laugh at others' misfortunes while wishing to be more like the wealthy portrayed (Rosenblum and Travis, 2012).

Along the same idea, media can also promote color blindness. Again, this can be seen in television shows, where everyone is the same and the topic of diversity is not discussed. Understandably, not ever tv show is trying to create positive social change but even so, they indirectly may show the public's view of diversity in how they decide to create their characters.

In the U.S. to reference someone as a nigger can be considered to be the worst insult. Originating from the Latin, it wasn't always an insult. It is unknown when the transition was made from noun to insult. Of course, the media does not portray this word in a good light and it is not widely used. As you may have noticed, I even have a challenging time typing it (I have only really typed it out once), because it is so engrained in me that we don't use that word; however, is the the right way to think? I am NOT SAYING we should begin to call each other by that term as a way to insult, not at all but are there other ways to go about this issue instead of just avoiding it (Rosenblum and Travis, 2012)?

The media has a power over people in the way that it can provide information very quickly and widely without missing beat. It has the responsibility to have accurate information while not reinforcing discrimination. Just like the media, we also have a responsibility. That is to not believe everything you hear, read, watch, etc. Critical thinking and following up about information is essential, if you want the real picture of an event or information provided. Without critical thinking, individuals are susceptible to blindly following someone who could be completely incorrect.

Rosenblum, K. E., & Travis, T. C. (2012). The Meaning of Difference: American Constructions of Race, Sex and Gender, Social Class, Sexual Orientation, and Disability (ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

"Lilly's Big Day," The Other Movement That Rosa Parks Inspired: By Sitting Down, She Made Room for the Disabled," and "Influencing Public Policy" (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 502

"...when she neared retirement, someone slipped her a pay schedule that showed her male colleagues were making much more money than she was" (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 489).

"Park's method of dissent-sitting still-was well suited to a community in which many people found themselves having to do that very thing all day long. Within two decades of her refusal to give up her seat, disabled people in cities across the country began staging their own sit-ins..." (Rosenblum and Travis, p.491).

"There are at least five central groups or stakeholders involved in influencing the legislative process: constituents, organizations or interest groups, coalitions, members of Congress, and congressional staffers" (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 492-493).

The above quotes provide insight into how various people were mistreated through discrimination, how those people fought discrimination, and a general outline of how we, as citizens of the U,S., can change the course of how we treat each other.

Lilly had been underpaid compared to her male co-workers for the entirety of her career. When she realized this and took her employer to court, the court found her company guiltily; however, her case was thrown out which meant she received nothing. Though she went through the process to receive lost payment and didn't in the end, she still did elicit change because she stood up for herself and others noticed.

Rosa, when refusing to give up her seat on the bus, was a model to others to stand up to those who were discriminating against them. People who used wheelchairs did sit-ins at city bus stations, as a way of showing their solidarity and a desire for change.

It can often feel overwhelming to think of all the good that needs to be done in the world; however, as the third quotes shows us, there are steps we can take to promote positive change.

The theme of these articles, is that when there is an opportunity to stand up for what is right and ethical, we should do our best to take the opportunity. As you may guess, it is not usually the easier path, though the potential rewards are the fact that you are supporting not only yourself but future generations.

Rosenblum, K. E., & Travis, T. C. (2012). The Meaning of Difference: American Constructions of Race, Sex and Gender, Social Class, Sexual Orientation, and Disability (ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

"Beyond the Closet: The Transformation of Gay and Lesbian Life," "Dude, You're a Fag: Adolescent Male Homophobia," and "Sexual Orientation and Sex in Women's Lives: Conceptual and Methodological Issues" (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 269-292)

"Identities are complex. We don't have just one and in the course of our lives we alter....If an identity...is considered the core, it will help shape an individual's decisions about friends, residence, social activities, and employment" (Rosenblum and Travis, p.269)

"Homophobia is indeed a central mechanism in the making of contemporary American adolescent masculinity" (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 277)

"Sexual behavior is still defined in genital ways that may not accurately reflect the totality of women's sexual experiences" (Rosenblum and Travis, p.291)

As the three quotes seen above point out, identities are ever-changing, are affected by those around us and how society's social constructs have been modeled to us while information/research concerning identity is still lacking (Rosenblum and Travis, 2012).

We do not go through life with only one identity. We may have more than one at a time, and some of those identities may stick with use, become our primary identity while others fade out of our lives or become more secondary identities (Rosenblum and Travis, 2012). As a child, you may consider yourself a student, a daughter, a flute player, and an avid reader. As you grow older, the identity of student and musician fade, while the daughter remains and mother, gardener, and businesswoman join.

In adolescence, society in the U.S. emphasizes that boys should begin to partake in opportunities to show their masculinity. This time of life is often confusing and potentially a difficult transition for boys to make, from boyhood to manhood. At the expense of others, some boys may engage in activities that increase others' perception of their masculinity, such as name calling, physical altercations, etc. Homophobia is a maladaptive manner in which some may attempt to display their entrance into adulthood. This practice is disgusting and as a society, we need to teach that boys do not need to engage in such acts to prove themselves masculine. In fact, they shouldn't have to prove anything at all (Rosenblum and Travis, 2012).

Relationships between two people are often categorized into heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, etc; however, some think that these do not encompass an individual's experience with relationships, and how relationships may actually look. It is unknown how we all get our needs met through various people in our lives. We may have a sexual partner, a best friend we talk to, etc. (Rosenblum and Travis, 2012).

Going forward, our nation needs to promote individuality even more and decrease the need for people to prove their masculinity or their sexual orientation. There should be no need for categorizing at all, as this only limits people. Since our identities evolve over time, our society needs to realize that reality, and reinforce the idea that is ok while teaching people how to co-exist without hatred for differences in identity.

Rosenblum, K. E., & Travis, T. C. (2012). The Meaning of Difference: American Constructions of Race, Sex and Gender, Social Class, Sexual Orientation, and Disability (ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

"It's All in the Family: Intersections of Gender, Race, and Nation," "Proving Manhood," and "Gendered Sexuality in Young Adulthood: Double Binds and Flawed Options" (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 245-268)

"The traditional family ideal projects a model of equality....actual families remain organized around varying patterns of hierarchy....the traditional family ideal assumes a male headship that privileges and naturalizes masculinity as a source of authority" (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 246-247).

"...proving masculinity may require frequent rehearsals of toughness....one's ability to withstand stress as a preparation for greater stress" (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 255)

"A battle of the sexes approach suggests that women have internalized a relational orientation but are unable to establish relationships because hooking up-which men prefer-has come to dominate college sexual culture (Rosenblum and Travis, p.261)

It was interesting to read the first article "It's All in the Family: Intersections of Gender, Race, and Nation" (Rosenblum and Travis, p. 245-254) which is quoted at the beginning of this post. What was intriguing is that the family model ideally would be a balanced relationship between adults, each having the same amount of say over the decision making process in a family. This also includes the decision making capabilities of children of these adults and how that should also be equal. As the first quote indicates, this is not necessarily what is occurring across the U.S. There is still a sense of a male figure being at the top of the family, then the mother, then the children. At times, even a male child may have more say than their mother.

The second quote found above, shows that the perception of males in the U.S. society is one of being tough and having the ability to withstand difficult situations; however, in order to prepare they must practice and contrive situations to be tough in (Rosenblum and Travis, 2012).

The last quote also shows this idea that males of college age in the U.S. are less likely to want relationships compared with their female peers. When women do engage in sexual encounters with peers that have no goal of a relationship, they may be stigmatized as a slut, unlike their male peers (Rosenblum and Travis, 2012). When it comes to the perception that females strive for relationships whereas males don't, is this a social construct, misinformation, or human nature?

To return to the first two quotes about male dominance in a family system, unfortunately I have experienced the consequences of being female in a family that still blindly considers some jobs of the family to be for females and some for males. My husband and I have almost the some exact educational background, as well as the same experience with fixing cars (none of our education included car mechanics, unfortunately). As I was speaking to my own father about a potential problem with my car, he told me to "just put (my husband) on the phone, he'll know more about this." Well you know what, my husband doesn't, and I dare say that I might now a bit more because I grew up helping my father when I unsuccessfully didn't find something else I had to do (fixing cars wasn't fun for me, though my younger sister loved it). I was so angry that my father had said that to me and I told him so (somewhat politely).

Another example, is when my extended family gets together for a birthday, holiday, etc. All of the men and women in my family hold full time jobs, no one is a stay at home parent. When it is time to prepare the meals, set the table, clean-up, and bring out dessert the women do it. The men sit in the living room and talk or watch tv. My father over the years, having two daughters who are opinionated, now helps, but the rest do nothing but enjoy the day. I remember as a child this occurring and thinking nothing of it but now it is so obviously unequal that I can't let it slide. It's a remnant from the past, from when my grandmother had that role (though, she definitely worked as well as kept the house up). The women in my family are not only expected to work but to keep house as well.

The three above quotes suggest the inequality of women and the social constructs we assign to males and females, that are simply outdated (or maybe should have never occurred in the first place). Fortunately, social constructs are what we invent, and that means they can be changed. Like the college students from Rosenblum's and Travis' (2012) book or the males and females in my family, roles need to be individualized, not the norm.

Rosenblum, K. E., & Travis, T. C. (2012). The Meaning of Difference: American Constructions of Race, Sex and Gender, Social Class, Sexual Orientation, and Disability (ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.