The Now 101

Mr. Sousa measures beauty by the European standard, and he is not shy about saying it. In 1997 in a Latina Magazine interview, he described his bias against contestants with African features saying that "black Venezuelan women are not very beautiful," he continued saying that "he would only choose a black girl if she had white features, just painted black." He has been the head judge of the competition since it started. It was no surprise to anyone why Ms. Lachapel, who has clear Afro roots, was not Mr. Sousa's favorite.

Throughout time, individuals have not only characterized themselves as men or women. Rather, there has been an emergence of other genders that have been used to define those who do not see themselves as either one. The town of Juchitan, located in Mexico, is well known for having a new gender known as the Muxes.

Just recently I came across a video in youtube that talked about Mexico's third gender called the Muxes. Similar to gay people, Muxes are men who feel trapped in their body and see themselves as women. Therefore based on socially constructed ideas of gender roles, Muxes adopt the life of a woman by wearing skirts, dresses, applying make-up, wearing heels, doing household chores, and more. However, unlike gay people who are attracted to gay people, Muxes are attracted to men.

To my surprise however, they have become highly integrated in Juchitan. The Juchitan residents annually celebrate the Muxes by hosting a festival called "Las Intrepidas Buscadoras del Peligro" (The Authentic Fearless Danger-Seekers). As Muxes, they are described by many as being different, bold, and daring individuals who do what they please, thus the origin of the festival's name. The festival consists of parading around the town announcing the festival, attending mass, and hosting a party where a new queen of the Muxes is announced.

In my opinion this annually celebrated festival symbolized the complete integration of the Muxes in Juchitan, especially when we take a look at Mexico's long legacy of patriarchy where ideas such as machisimo (beliefs that portray men as the authority figure and women as obeying the men) have been extremely present in the lives of Mexicans; however it does not symbolize full integration.

Machisimo has not only been correlated with the idea of males being the authoritative figures, but also with homophobia. As machistas, they believe a man must act like a man, they must be strong, protective of their family, the breadwinners, can not cry, must not behave as girls or like a man. As a result, Muxes and gays have been the targets of these individuals.

It was surprising to see that living in Mexico, in a patriarchal society, Muxes were accepted, however the patriacrhal aspect of Mexico has not completely vanished.  There is a consensus that Muxes must not have a partner and are therefore doomed to live a life of "soledad" (loneliness) as a Muxe describes. To have a partner is seen as morally wrong and so they become highly appreciated because they are the children who take care of their parents when they are old.

I think this situation can be seen everywhere by societies who still carry patriarchal beleifs. In this case it was even more surprising to hear how individuals who said were accepting of Muxes and even celebrated with them at the festival refused the idea of allowing them to have a partner. This consequently shows patriarchy as the one of the factors that results in the inability for full integration for Muxes and also gay individuals.

Recently I came across the controversy that has been occurring for some time concerning the student-athletes that are not being paid for their participation in sports. The contracts given to these students by universities state that students resign any form of economic compensation and that being a student justifies them not to get paid. However, when we take a look at the amount of profit being made in the NCAA March Madness, how can we not give students who are actually creating the revenue any kind of economic compensation?

As a fan of sociology, theorist Karl Marx quickly came to mind when I saw such exploitation of student-athletes. As many of us might be familiar with, or at least have heard of, Karl Marx is a renown economist that has been widely known for his critique on capitalism. Among his previous ideas, Marx argues that history is a class struggle that is defined though the transformations of the economy and that the division of labor is what shapes human life. These class struggles and division of labor is characterized through a 2 class system that he defines as the proletariat and the bourgeoise.

The bourgeoise are those who own the means of production (factories, jobs, real estate), while the proletariat are the ones who compete for jobs owned by the bourgeoise.  As a result, the proletariat must inhabit the mode of production - the way of doing something - that is being presented by the bourgeoise.

This is exactly what is happening in the case of student-athletes. Student athletes are told to sign contracts (a mode of production) that are written by those who are in charge, the NCAA and universities (the bourgeoisie). The idea that students must not be paid because they are amateurs and that events like these are simply for entertainment, Marx would argue, hide the real class relations in society, or as he would say, are ideal superstructures used to cover up and alienate the people from what is really happening: exploitation and the accumulation of capital for the bourgeoisie.

Capitalism represents a situation where the means of production is in the hands of a few (NCAA and universities) and where workers (student-athletes) are basically forced into these jobs as their only form of survival,  as are workers who were displaced by so many factories, machines, and technology.

Based on the Labor Theory of Value, "labor/productive activity is at root of all value" since we must work to survive. The theory holds 3 different values, use-value, exchange value, and surplus value. Use-value is the usefulness of something - NCAA being done for entertainment and students-athletes playing basketball, exchange value is the labor needed to recoup investment - the years of training and trainees for student-athletes, and lastly the surplus value which is basically new value created out of thin air. Surplus value is the difference between the price sold at and the cost of the production. Consequently, any extra money that becomes surplus to the different between the two becomes capital and revenue for the bourgeoisie and no extra pay for the workers.

The NCAA has taken advantage of contracts to the extent of creating video games and giving no type of compensation to the students who are portrayed in those video games as the basketball players. They in turn have received up to 1 billion dollars in the NCAA March Madness through the gear, video games, ticket sales, among other things. Yet claim that student athletics is what really matters. But does it?

If they are receiving so much money and not even paying students even some percentage for their hard work and dedication then does that put athletics its priority? No. If they really care about athletics why not get rid of all the sponsorship that takes place in the NCAA. Some universities state that paying players will only lower the funding for other sports, however I'm sure funding can be found in other programs from the school. Probably lowering budgets can result in the sufficient funds for other programs.  I certainly agree in a movement to unionize student-athletes because receiving an education for playing a sport is no longer seen as valuable, especially when we know that students in sports dedicate so much of their time to sports that their education can negatively be affected.

Barcelona takes the win with a score of 2 to 1 versus Real Madrid. The first half of the game was controlled by Real Madrid with a goal by Cristiano Ronaldo - best player in the world. But once again, Barcelona ties and takes the lead. Whoahhh!

She [Leslie Starr Heimov] noticed that in 2010, 85% of girls arrested [those involved in the sex trade] were from South LA. Compton, Long Beach and Inglewood, and 94% of the girls were African-American. Most of them were in foster care and not being able to learn how to gain connections and relationships. Pratt has helped dozens of under-age girls receive help and guidance.

Los Angeles county is finally planning a specialized court to handle the growing number of youth in foster care that are deceived into prostitution.  The court is proposed to provide an increase in the attention of judges, lawyers, social workers, and specially trained advocates.

Trauma Informed Care is an organizational structure and treatment framework that involves understanding, recognizing, and responding to the effects of all types of trauma. Trauma Informed Care also emphasizes physical, psychological and emotional safety for both consumers and providers, and helps survivors rebuild a sense of control and empowerment.

In the year 1964, tremendous change in the rights of all residents of the US occurred. Segregation in public spaces and schools was banned and discrimination in the work force forbidden. But if we were to analyze today's society with the enactment of the Civil Rights Law of 1964, has it really been banned? What if I told you that all those laws that were forbidden are actually taking place in present day, 21st century in the United States, and overwhelmingly targeting incarcerated individuals? What would you say?

The moment I heard this I became extremely shocked at how uninformed I was about the world around me  to the point of not noticing the discrimination that is openly occurring everywhere. Just in case you are still unaware of what I am talking about, here's a clue to help you understand: the Ban the Box campaign.

The Ban the Box campaign began in 2004 by the All of Us or None organization, a human and civil rights activists group that advocates for the formally and currently incarcerated individuals and their families. The organization has been fighting the employment system that has been around for many years, specifically in regards to the "box".

I am sure many of you, when filling out an application, have been confronted with the question, "Have you been convicted of felony? check one: yes or no", this is the "box" they are referring to. This is what the campaign is all about. As stated in the Legal Services for Prisoners with Children website, "The goal of All of Us or None is to strengthen the voices of people most affected by mass incarceration and the growth of the prison-industrial complex. Through our grassroots organizing, we are building a powerful political movement to win full restoration of our human and civil rights".

The Ban the Box campaign is basically trying vanish this conviction question, that appears in employment, education, and housing applications, in order to give a fair chance to individuals who have some sort of conviction in their history. Through out the years, this box has deterred many individuals from successfully integrating back into society, therefore they urge individuals to support their campaign in order to gain full restoration of there rights.

You may be wondering however, how is this box correlated with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Actually, the correlation is not a good one, but instead due to the box, everything that was abolished in 1964 has become acceptable for this community of formerly and currently convicted individuals, "These questions mean lifelong discrimination and exclusion because of a past arrest or conviction record."And this is simply unjust. Many individuals are trying to become  productive in the system we live in and not only provide for themselves, but also for their families; "Studies have shown that three out of every five formerly incarcerated folks remain jobless one year after they are released from prison." Seeing the boxed check for many employers is an application that has no value, no matter the competency they may have. 

I think putting ourselves in their shoes we can begin to understand the struggle they face when trying to get a second chance in society. They can't find jobs, they don't have the support and communication from society, housing does not allow them to live in certain areas (therefore not being able to live with their family and have the support they need), and employment becomes so much more difficult . 

However when you take look at the other side of the coin you see all the concerns that many individuals, family members, parents, and children have about taking off this box from applications. The feeling of insecurity can arise, no longer making individuals feel safe in the work place, education setting, and housing. As individuals we might not be as comfortable having someone who has been convicted with a felony, however banning the box does not mean that employers will not have the ability to do background checks. 

New jersey has also joined in with the Ban the Box campaign and in their fact sheet they state: 

Ban The Box laws do not prevent employers from conducting background checks. They do not
require an employer to hire an unqualified applicant. They do not eliminate an employer’s discretion to hire only people suitable for the position. They do not override any existing laws placing restrictions on eligibility for particular positions. They simply ask employers to consider an individual’s full application, providing a realistic opportunity for a person who has changed his or her life.

This makes it clear that background checks are still allowed and occurring with the enactment of these "Fair Chance Policy" (which advocates for the Ban the Box campaign).  The only ate ration to these will be that employers will be able to do these after the hiring process, in order to ensure equal opportunity in getting a job. 

In regards to the concerns of public safety, in the National Employment Law Project's Fact sheet it states that it reduces recidivism rates and increases public safety. Based on their research summary, 

A 2011 study of the formerly incarcerated found that employment was the single most important influence on decreasing recidivism, and that two years after release nearly twice as many employed people with records had avoided another brush with the law than their unemployed counterparts.

As shown, the public safety is overall increased with the equal and fair chance of applying for jobs. Recidivism rates were also shown to have decreased from a 52.3 to a 16 percent recidivism when employed for a year, while a decrease of 20% for even 30 days.

One last final point I would like to make is that the implementation of Fair Chance policies, just as was shown in the previous research summary for other locations that have implemented this police, will also help the economy in bringing more money to taxpayers and more to sales revenue. 



Overall, I do understand the concerns of many individuals regarding public safety but if we begin to give this opportunity to individuals who have been convicted with a felony, then as time progresses these results will increase for the better of society. Recidivism rates will decrease, the economy will improve, and most importantly felons will have the opportunity to live a life with the civil and human rights that they are guaranteed through the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

"contracts exchanged between private prison companies and state and local governments that either guarantee prison occupancy rates (essentially creating inmate lockup quotas) or force taxpayers to pay for empty beds if the prison population decreases due to lower crime rates or other factors (essentially creating low-crime taxes)".

 Therefore, efforts for rehabilitation are low and those of criminalization are high.

Besides obtaining five prescriptions and getting to the pharmacy to fill them (and that’s assuming no hassles with the insurance company, and that the patient actually has insurance), the patient would also be expected to cut down on salt and fat at each meal, exercise three or four times per week, make it to doctors’ appointments, get blood tests before each appointment, check blood sugar, get flu shots – on top of remembering to take the morning pills and then the evening pills each and every day.

Added up, that’s more than 3,000 behaviors to attend to, each year, to be truly adherent to all of the doctor’s recommendations. Viewed in that light, one can see how difficult it is for a patient to remain fully compliant.

The role of a patient can become very hectic, especially when you are expected to do so many things. However the reasons for such non-compliance is not because patients want to go against doctors or because they are loaded with so much information, which is all seen in a doctor-centered approach, rather they do not comply and instead self-regulate because they want to better manage their experience as a patient.

In an article called "The Meaning of Medications: Another Look at Compliance" by Peter Conrad, we can see how self-regulation is not a deviant act but rather a way to manage an illness as it progresses. Individuals tend to self-regulate depending on their illness experience, which is the experience that a patient goes through with an illness. Therefore, as individuals who are going through the actual illness experience and whom understand their illness, they tend to regulate their own medication regimen. As stated by Conrad, "the most common rationales for altering a medication practice are drug related: medication is perceived as ineffective if the so-called side effects become too troublesome”, which can clarify the" 30 to 50% of all patients [who] ignore or otherwise compromise instructions concerning their medications". 

When we look at non-adherence through the perspective of a doctor all we understand is that patients continue to lack compliance to their medication and recommendations. However we must understand the patient's illness experience in order to see that it is not a patient being non-adherence, but rather a patient practicing self-regulation in order to manage their illness at the best possible way. 

"Partnering with the free, online resource is intended to make the SAT more transparent, and cut back on perceptions of inequality around expensive test preparation services, Coleman explained Wednesday."

I think test preparation will help battle these negative notions of inequality, however as La caprichosa mentioned in her post, "[R]esearch has shown that 'there is no evidence that commercial test preparation makes much of a difference in admissions test performance....Regardless, the benefits of commercial test preparation appear to be small...". Yet, even if such does not cause any change, they are also trying to combat these issues by targeting the way it is presented in the questions themselves, Coleman mentioned that:

"Admissions officers and counselors have said they find the data from admissions exams useful, but are concerned that these exams have become disconnected from the work of high school classrooms and surrounded by costly test preparation."

The questions will now be guided by the material learned in class and not by what's given in expensive test preparations. Students will be asked to identify words that are actually used repetitively in their classes, asked to analyze a context of word to define it, and apply math to solve 'real world' problems.

I like the idea of change in this examination, however I feel like these are things that were expected from older generations. One change that I believe would lead to positive results would be to give students more time for each section. The test should be concerned about what the students know, not in how much time they can complete it. Personally I struggled a lot with the time limit and I think this can make a huge difference in getting a higher SAT score than that compared to a 4 hour test. Also, another suggestion would be the addition of another section - science. This section can be useful in preparing students for the required science class in their chosen college.