Introducction to Sociology December 10, 2013. Heterosexual Privilege: Unpacking the invisible Purse or it is Wallet? “I was taught to see transexuality only in individual acts of prejudice, not in invisible systems conferring dominance on my group” Thinking through unacknowledged heterosexual privilege as a phenomenon, I realized that, since hierarchies in our society are interlocking, there is most likely a phenomenon of heterosexual privilege that is denied and protected. As a heterosexual person, I’ve come to acknowledge my upbringing as something that puts others (transsexuals) at a disadvantage. Yet, this same upbringing blinded me to the inherent social disadvantage experienced by transsexuals.
Dr. Joyce Brothers sums her article up quite nicely when she says “there are no dirty works only dirty minds.”(375) Suggesting that people use dirty words because they have unhealthy phobias. Dr. Brothers feels that although there are exceptions, like getting in a car accident, or stubbing your toe, one should refrain from using those “dirty words”. Sex words, in her opinion, loose their power when we view sex as not exploitation but as in an activity that brings men and women closer together. She feels that sex words will wear out once they are overused and overall using those words hints at a feeling of insecurity. Overall, she feels that profanity is a bad thing and should not be overused.
Becker argued that it is not a certain behaviour or act that is deviant but it is how we react to it that makes it deviant. Therefore ‘deviance’ is a relative concept as there is no fix agreement on what they mean For example homosexuality was labelled deviant and illegal in the past but now the same behaviour is acceptable. Becker famously said “a deviant is simply someone to whom the label has been successfully applied” therefore crime and deviance are the product of the labelling processes. However some sociologist point out that this argument implies that deviancy wouldn’t exist without labelling however sociologist Cohen argues that crime and deviance will exist from when there is status frustration. Cohen argues that Working class boys are often at the bottom of the status hierarchy because of failing the opportunity structure of education and the inability to get a good job.
For Mate to say that all addictive drug use is caused from neglect issues is not accurate because he does not account for the people who do drugs because they want to. In spite of Mate’s lack of information, his use of hard evidence, and personal anecdotes aides in validating his argument. Scientific examples are
But according to the Critique of Anti-Spanking Study, found in Assertive Discipline, "experts do not all agree that spanking is harmful and some believe that mild spanking is a useful form of discipline" (Canter). Also the same study said "72% of people surveyed still find it acceptable to punish a child by spanking them" (Canter). These are very different conclusions than the one found by the other doctors and people asked above. Bringing the reader to the conclusion that all discipline is a form of opinion. Most opinions still lean toward spanking being a form of abuse and that spanking a child is totally unacceptable because striking a young child will not actually teach them to be good.
He continues by claiming that denying housing and employment for smokers is a form of public hostility. This is a false analogy, and where Scott uses the term “discrimination” in an inappropriate manner. Racial and ethnic discrimination is different because people do not choose to be a certain race like choosing to be a smoker. Furthermore, people do not negatively affect others in their vicinity with secondhand ethnicity. By stating that nonsmokers “force their beliefs on the rest of society,” Scott suggests that smokers are victims of violences, and are threatened with restriction of the First Amendment.
As Didion explains, our expectations don’t always match up to what grief has to offer, Gilbert’s supporting claims relate to Didion’s feelings on expectations. Gilbert mentions “ No one can imagine every feature and consequence of a future event, hence we must consider some and fail to consider others (Gilbert 224-225).” Gilbert wants us to know that no matter what happens, no one can really imagine every detail that will take place in the
The term is a vulgar insult and is usually associated with lack of masculinity. Loss of respect among this group of males is also associated with being “pussywhipped”. What I find troubling about this word is that no vulgar equivalent for a relationship where the man is dominant over the woman exists. According to my group of male friends, “It’s because that’s how it’s supposed to be. You don’t need a special word for it.” The existence of this word and the lack of a female counterpart reflect the perception of women in the culture of male college freshmen.
So far in the United States only Nevada has been able to claim that benefit. The reduction of STI’s including HIV is also a possible conclusion. This becomes possible because of stricter regulation of sex work industry rather than no regulation of the illegal prostitution business. Moral decline is also cited as a con of legalized prostitution. I believe that this comes from a stigma of what is right and wrong according to our own religious views and not what would be best for a majority of the people.
It’s not clear as to whether Spinoza meant (a) there cannot be two substances with all the same attributes in common; or (b) there cannot be two substances with an attribute in common. Spinoza uses the phrase “nature or attribute” which suggests that he meant (a) because a substance’s nature constitutes sharing all of the same attributes not just some. This interpretation helps his argument for premise one the most because if substances are distinguished by their attributes, then substances cannot have all the same attributes in common. For Spinoza, substance is something self-conceivable, however, this conception of substance does not work if there are substances that share something in common because we would conceive one substance in terms of an extrinsic property. Hence, our conception of one substance would be understood via an external property in relation with the other substance.