Race, Class, and Gender Rothenbergs book

Race, Class, and Gender Rothenbergs book Introduction Race, class, and gender are issues that many people find incredibly hard to appreciate and recognize as characteristics of diversity that define people not only in the United States but also on global platforms. From this dilemma, this paper focuses on conducting a critique of various articles appearing in Rothenberg’s book Race, Class, and Gender in the United States.Advertising We will write a custom critical writing sample on Race, Class, and Gender: Rothenberg’s book specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Racial Formations by Michael Omi and Howard Winant Michael Omi and Howard Winant discuss issues of class, gender, and race. They see these issues as social constructions as opposed to scientific aspects, which define people’s differences (Rothenberg, 2009, p.11). The authors view race as a concept that is deeply seated in the history of all people across the globe since time immemorial. Although human beings are seen as equal irrespective of their race, gender, or class with the modern approaches to race, gender, and class studies, Michael Omi and Howard Winant wonder why it is possible for one to see people who are different in terms of skin color, gender, and social economic status. Social economic status is a major factor that is used to segregate people into different classes. Although this debate is not consistent with the struggles by many nations including the United States to ensure that all people irrespective of their diverse characteristics are considered equal human beings whose fundamental human rights must be respected, the argument by Michael Omi and Howard Winant holds substance. I agree with it. Despite the extent to which people may decide to deny the realities of racial and gender identities, it is a fact that they identify other people as women or men, or from their place of origin. For instance, some Americans are categorized as Asian-Americans, whites, or Af rican-Americans. Notwithstanding the fact that all these persons are considered part of the rich American diversity, the usage of these terms to distinguish Americans has the aspect of race ingrained within them. Now, consistent with Michael Omi and Howard Winant’s arguments, it is perhaps impossible to see other people as ‘just people’ rather than seeing them as women and men.Advertising Looking for critical writing on social sciences? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More This argument contends with Michael Omi and Howard Winant’s Assertion that â€Å"we utilize race to provide clues about who a person is† (Rothenberg, 2009, p.12). This ability is often navigated from one generation to another based on perceptions of how a particular group of people appears in terms of their faces. It is common during conversations to encounter people putting forward comments such as ‘you really do n’t look like a white’, which indicate that some people have some racial stereotyping, either positive or negative, on the manner in which certain races of people behave or act. I agree with Michael Omi and Howard Winant that perception of class based on social economic status is a major issue that afflicts many nations across the globe including the United States. For instance, the authors argue that interpretation of racial identities is heftily influenced by perceptions of class (Rothenberg, 2009, p.15). This argument often leads to construction of negative stereotypes. For instance, blacks have had an experience of being negatively stereotyped as predominantly belonging to a low social economic status. This matter perhaps reveals why there have been repeated cases for blacks being associated with crime. The question that rises from this issue is, should negative stereotyping of blacks explain why there is a higher prevalence of the blacks is prisons? Does it then n ecessarily mean that blacks belonging in low social economic class, as they are profiled in some media, imply that they engage in crime to earn a living? My position is that these cases are merely habits of thought, which while given public attention end up being legitimized. Consequently, they act as incredible mechanisms of distinguishing wrongly and profiling other people wrongly. This position agrees with Michael Omi and Howard Winant’s position that failure to appreciate that people are equal and similar amid their skin color or social economic status ends pushing for negative gender, race, and class perspectives beyond skin color conceptualizations (Rothenberg, 2009, p.14). How Jews Became White by Karen Brodki Written by Karen Brodki, the article ‘How Jews Became White’ narrates how European immigrants as from 1880s became assimilated into America, what the author terms as becoming white. This discussion is significant in terms of advancement of the debate of race, class, and gender perspectives as major experiences that the U.S. has been struggling to handle.Advertising We will write a custom critical writing sample on Race, Class, and Gender: Rothenberg’s book specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More The article explores deeply into one of the dominant issues in America, which marked the beginning of appreciation of diverseness for Americans in terms of recognition of the contribution of every person irrespective of his or her place of origin, race, or class in economic development of the American nation. However, the author makes it clear that the substantive growth of America as a nation has not come into being in an easy way, but has entailed many struggles to deal with identities of people who make up the nation. In the studies of gender, class, and racial differences of persons, the developments made by the article on the process that was followed by the Jewfish emigrants before they were assimilated into America is incredibly significant. Jews were emigrants from Europe. Here, they were treated as an inferior class of people. Such perceptions of inferiority emanated from the fact that Jews provided the much-needed labor to the Native American. This case made the ‘white’ even more wealthy especially during the era of industrial boom in the United States (Rothenberg, 2009, p. 61). The usage of the word ‘white’ is strikingly significant in the perceptions of race and class. Indeed, Jews are white in terms of skin color. However, when it is argued that the white owned the factors of production while Jews provided the necessary labor to keep the industries moving on, it implies that persons in the low social economic status were not considered as real whites, although their skin color could be white. Education is one of the essential factors that determine the social economic status of an individual. Educated persons have better chanc es of acquiring better jobs. Hence, their social economics status is also likely to be higher. This argument coincides with the Karen Brodki assertion, â€Å"prior to the civil war, a college degree was still very much a mark of the upper class† (Rothenberg, 2009, p.61). This idea means that schools could only be accessed by those individuals belonging to higher social economic status, whether Native American or immigrants.Advertising Looking for critical writing on social sciences? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More The situation even became worse for immigrants such as the Jews when colleges in 1930s had minimal rooms to accommodate immigrants irrespective of their social economic status. This argument is significant by noting that 1930s marked a significant time when racism was at its peak. In this context, I agree with Karen Brodki that perception of race and class are essential factors, which help to explain the struggles that America has gone through in the effort to reach its current state of embracement of various socio-demographic diversities of her inhabitants and integration of different cultures of a diverse number of people (Rothenberg, 2009, p.66). Today, the racially and culturally diverse people have a common culture referred to as the American culture. This culture does not segregate people along tribal, racial, gender, or even socio-economic class. All people have the rights to access justice and basic human needs including education and employment opportunities. The Social Con struction of Gender by Judith Lorber Authored by Judith Lorber, in the article Night to His Day: the Social Construction of Gender argues that people create gender through their social interactions. This argument means that gender is acted and performed. Judith Lorber supports this assertion by claiming that acting of gender involves prescription of various roles for different gender. For instance, the author says that it sounds awkward to some people who still believe that the roles of women and men are different in the society to think of men strolling children in the city of New York (Rothenberg, 2009, p.54). The manner in which people describe the dressing code and other characteristics of people also acts as a means of acting gender. For instance, thinking of description of a child as wearing certain clothes, which are thought of being supposed to be worn by a girl child is a mechanism of acting gender. This argument means that people have particular things that they expect one gender to do and not the other. Indeed, it is until the last two decades that people across the globe have appreciated that men could also put on earrings. This means that the history of people has always dictated things that are supposed to done by one gender as opposed to the other. In this extent, gender is performed and acted by people. Although gender may be seen from the perspective of Judith Lorber as an issue that can be evaded, the manner in which evading it can be done supersedes the reality of the manner in which gender is constructed within the minds of people. Judith Lorber posits, â€Å"Gendering is done from birth, constantly, and by everyone† (Rothenberg, 2009, p.55). This position means that immediately people are born, they are introduced to the debate of gender perspectives so that, by the time children learn to talk, they know the gender they belong to, mostly male or female. Arguably, the process through which this process takes place is beyond the contr ol of people since gender is implied even in the language that people use to communicate right from the usage of nouns to pronouns that refer to different genders. This kind of gender categorization of persons often gives rise to conflicts. For instance, based on normalization of the only two types of gender, transgendered persons may end up having whole life internal conflicts amongst themselves in the attempt to come to an understanding of why they divert from the normalized gender categories. Should this case then reveal why some persons who are transgendered strive with the problem of looking for mechanisms of transforming their gender identity so that they can fit into one of these two-gender categories: male or female? Despite the challenges that are introduced in the society by gender acting, I agree with Judith Lorber that gender is inevitable in some aspects. Judith Lorber argues, â€Å"As a social institution, gender is one of the major ways that human beings organize the ir lives† (Rothenberg, 2009, p.55). The collective progression of a society is dependent on divisions of labor. People can be selected to fit into different areas of economy based on motivations, talents, and even their academic qualifications. However, can people run away from the culture of classifying some jobs as more prevalent to certain gender relative to the other? This question is perhaps more important by considering that, even today, while people claim that there is no specific job that needs to be the province of a given gender, people still allocate tasks in a work environment to different persons based on age and gender demographic factors. Arguably, it is not surprising to encounter a job opening being advertised stating that the most preferred candidate should be a male or a female. Nevertheless, I agree with Judith Lorber that people are born with determined sex, with gender being socially induced (Rothenberg, 2009, p.57). Although one is born with the awarenes s that he or she is a girl or a boy, or even transgendered, it is from social interactions that one comes to learn than boys or girls dress in a certain manner, play certain games, have certain names, which are feminine and masculine, and the unique characteristics that best explain their sameness. The argument here is that, consistent with Judith Lorber’s presentation of gender identities along with how they are constructed, people perform and act gender. It is through such performance that one becomes cognizant of his or her sex. The Invention of Heterosexuality by Jonathan Ned Katz In his article The Invention of Heterosexuality, Jonathan Ned Katz traces the historical development of the concept of heterosexuality. To the author, studying the history of this concept is important since, â€Å"by not studying the idea of heterosexuality in history, analysts of sex, gay, and straight have continued to privilege the ‘normal’ and ‘natural’ at the expe nse of the ‘abnormal’ and ‘unnatural’† (Rothenberg, 2009, p.150) . From this assertion, it is evident that the author sees the concept of heterosexuality and the entire sexuality concept as being characterized by different interpretations as time progresses from when the biblical story of creation took place to the modern world. I subscribe to the above school of thought. There has been a change of what people consider a normal sexual inclination. The history of American experiences with sexuality struggles perhaps reveals it all. In the early 19th century, being a gay or a lesbian was a big crime. It was seen as both ethically and morally inappropriate. It was considered one of the ways of tearing the social fabrics that had been binding the American society together. The only socially justifiable sexual inclination was heterosexuality, which is now being described by the term straight. A century later, homosexuality including lesbianism and gay sexu al orientation are considered as normal sexual orientations. Indeed, it is an offence to discriminate people on the grounds of their sexual orientations in America. Jonathan Ned Katz also believes that there has been a big change in the manner in which sexuality is visualized. During the early Victorian age, 1820 to 1860, the author claims, â€Å"the actors in the sexual economy were identified as manly men and womanly women and/or as procreators† (Rothenberg, 2009, p.151). This description means that, if procreation did not fit in the equation of any relationship between two people, such a relationship was condemned. This case was to change later in the 1960s to 1980s when recognition of only one sexual orientation began to raise attraction of sexuality movements such as those staged by homosexual with the objective of acquiring the rights of being recognized (Rothenberg, 2009, p.158). This case clearly showed that sexuality is not a function of procreation but eroticism. In this regard, I agree with Jonathan Ned Katz since desire is the main driver of one’s sexual orientation. People have the freedom to satisfy their own desires subject to the limitation that they do not harm other people. Why should people fail to recognize homosexuality and other sexual inclinations? Disability and the Justification of Inequality in American History by Douglas Baynton In this article, Douglas Baynton argues that disability encompasses one of the main aspects that are used historically to treat people unequally. According to him, discrimination of people has called into question the aspect of disability to ensure that such discriminations are justified (Rothenberg, 2009, p.33). Careful scrutiny of developments in the political arena of various nations makes this assertion of Baynton important. Analysis of how different groups of people have struggled to gain their freedoms reveals that disability is not just a physical incapability. For instance, women were de nied suffrage rights in America until 1930s on the ground that they had flaws that were related to their gender, which incapacitated them from making good decisions. Such deficits provided amicable responses to why male members of the society were not only valid and capable for making decisions such as voting the right people but also why they needed to domineer over women. Considering also the mass killing of Jews during the Nazi regime, the question of disability also arises. People who were killed during this time, mainly of Jewish origin, were considered an inferior race. Hence, the Jewish question was worth resolving. The solution was to mass slaughter Jews on the accounts of the perceived disability. From the above discussion, it intrigues one to think of how gender, race, and class are interrelated in terms of disability. Baynton provides an adequate response to this noble challenge by discussing the experience of black Americans with slavery. He argues, â€Å"The most commo n disability arguments for slavery were simply that African-Americans lacked sufficient intelligence to participate or compete on an equal basis in society with white Americans† (Rothenberg, 2009, p.37). Therefore, there was a misconception that skin color could indicate the degree of one’s intellectual intelligence. Consequently, skin pigmentation, other than white, was a disability. In this extent I agree with Baynton that disability is a crucial discriminatory issue that the society has always attempted to handle. Baynton evidences the darkest part of the historical relationship between disability and incapability when he argues that African-Americans were also considered having the risks of developing physical disabilities when they were given freedom. While this argument is important in developing the arguments for justification of denial of freedom among black Americans on the grounds of the perceived and actual disabilities, it is questionable whether indeed skin color may be indicative of one’s proneness to certain disability challenges such as deafness yet biologically there is evidence that skin color is due to melanin. This chemical component of the human body is not related to other aspects such as intelligence and susceptibility to situations that may make an individual disabled. Reference Rothenberg, P. (2009). Race, Class, and Gender in the United States. New York: Mac Higher.

An Overview of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court Decision

An Overview of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court Decision On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court handed down its historic decision in Roe v. Wade, overturning a Texas interpretation of abortion law and making abortion legal in the United States.  It was a turning point in  womens reproductive rights and has remained a hot-button issue within United States politics ever since. The Roe v. Wade decision held that a woman, with her doctor, could choose abortion in earlier months of pregnancy without legal restriction, based primarily on the right to privacy. In later trimesters, state restrictions could be applied. Fast Facts: Roe v. Wade Case Argued: December 13, 1971; October 11, 1972Decision Issued:  January 22, 1973Petitioner:  Jane Roe (appellant)Respondent:  Henry Wade (appellee)Key Questions: Does the Constitution embrace a womans right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion?Majority Decision: Justices Burger, Douglas, Brennan, Stuart, Marshall, Blackmun, and PowellDissenting: Justices White and RehnquistRuling:  A womans right to an abortion falls within the right to privacy as protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. However, while decision gave women autonomy during the first trimester of pregnancy, different levels of state interest for the second and third trimesters were allowed.   Facts of the Case   In 1969, Texan Norma McCorvey was a poor, working class 22-year-old woman, unmarried and looking to end an unwanted pregnancy. But in Texas, abortion was illegal unless it was for the purpose of saving the life of the mother.† She was eventually referred to attorneys Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee, who were looking for a plaintiff to challenge the Texas law. On their advice, McCorvey, using the pseudonym Jane Roe, filed a lawsuit against the Dallas County district attorney Henry Wade, an official responsible for enforcing criminal laws, including anti-abortion statutes. The suit said the law was unconstitutional because it was an invasion of her privacy; she sought the overturn of the law and an injunction so she could go ahead with the abortion.   The district court agreed with McCorvey that the law was unconstitutionally vague and violated her right to privacy under the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, but refused to issue an injunction. McCorvey appealed and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, along with another case called Doe v. Bolton, lodged against a similar Georgia statute. The Supreme Court case filing occurred on March 3, 1970, when McCorvey was six months pregnant; she eventually gave birth and that child was adopted. She said she wanted to continue with the case to support other womens rights. Arguments for Roe v. Wade began on December 13, 1971. Weddington and Coffee were the plaintiffs lawyers. John Tolle, Jay Floyd, and Robert Flowers were the defendants lawyers. Constitutional Issues   The Roe v. Wade case was argued for the plaintiff Jane Roe on the grounds that the Texas abortion law violated the Fourteenth and Ninth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law to all citizens and, in particular, required that laws be clearly written.   Previous cases challenging abortion laws usually cited the Fourteenth Amendment, claiming that the law was not specific enough when a womans life might be threatened by pregnancy and childbirth. However, since attorneys Coffee and Weddington wanted a decision that rested on a pregnant womans right to decide for herself whether or not an abortion was necessary, they based their argument on the Ninth Amendment, which states: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. The framers of the Constitution had recognized that new rights might be developed in years to come and they wanted to be able to protect those rights. The state prepared its case primarily on the basis that a fetus had legal rights, which ought to be protected. The Arguments The argument for the plaintiff Jane Doe stated that, under the U.S. Bill of Rights, a woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy. It is improper for a State to impose on a womans right to privacy in personal, marital, familial, and sexual decisions. There is no case in the Courts history that declares that a fetus- a developing infant in the womb- is a person. Therefore, the fetus cannot be said to have any legal right to life. Because it is unduly intrusive, the Texas law is unconstitutional and should be overturned. The argument for the State rested on its duty to protect prenatal life. The unborn are people, and as such are entitled to protection under the Constitution because life is present at the moment of conception. The Texas law was, therefore, a valid exercise of police powers reserved to the States in order to protect the health and safety of citizens, including the unborn. The law is constitutional and should be upheld. Majority Opinion   On Jan. 22, 1973, the Supreme Court handed down their ruling, holding that a womans right to an abortion falls within the right to privacy protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman a right to abortion during the entirety of the pregnancy and defined different levels of state interest for regulating abortion in the second and third trimesters.   In the first trimester, the state (that is, any government) could treat abortion only as a medical decision, leaving medical judgment to the womans physician.In the second trimester (before viability), the states interest was seen as legitimate when it was protecting the health of the mother.After the viability of the fetus (the likely ability of the fetus to survive outside of and separated from the uterus), the potential of human life could be considered as a legitimate state interest. The state could choose to regulate, or even proscribe abortion as long as the life and health of the mother was protected. Majority: Harry A. Blackmun (for The Court), William J. Brennan, Lewis F. Powell Jr., Thurgood Marshall. Concurring: Warren Burger, William Orville Douglas, Potter Stewart Dissenting Opinion In his dissenting opinion, Justice William H. Rehnquist argued that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend it to protect a right of privacy, a right which they did not recognize and that they definitely did not intend for it to protect a woman’s decision to have an abortion. Justice Rehnquist further argued that the only right to privacy is that which is protected by the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures. The Ninth Amendment does not apply here.   Finally, he concluded that because this issue required a careful balance of the interests of the woman against the interests of the state, it was not an appropriate decision for the Court to make, but instead was a question that should have been left up to state legislatures to resolve. Dissenting: William H. Rehnquist (for The Court), Byron R. White The Impact The Texas statute was struck down as a whole, and further, Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in the United States, which was not legal at all in many states and was limited by law in others. All state laws limiting womens access to abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy were invalidated by the Roe v. Wade decision. State laws limiting such access during the second trimester were upheld only when the restrictions were for the purpose of protecting the health of the pregnant woman.   As for Norma McCorvey, four days after the decision, she publicly identified herself as Jane Roe. Living in a happy lesbian relationship in Dallas, she stayed relatively unknown until 1983, when she began volunteering at a womens health center. As an activist, she eventually helped establish the Jane Roe Foundation and the Jane Roe Womens Center, to help poor Texas women obtain legal abortions.   In 1995, McCorvey connected with a pro-life group and renounced abortion rights, helping co-create a new Texas nonprofit, Roe No More Ministry. Although she continued to live with her partner Connie Gonzalez, she also publicly rejected homosexuality. McCorvey died in 2017.   Sources Greenhouse, Linda, and Reva B. Siegel. Before (and after) Roe V. Wade: New Questions About Backlash. The Yale Law Journal 120.8 (2011): 2028-87. Print.Joffe, Carole. Roe V. Wade at 30: What Are the Prospects for Abortion Provision? Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 35.1 (2003): 29-33. Print.Klorman, Renee, and Laura Butterbaugh. Roe V. Wade Turns 25. Off Our Backs 28.2 (1998): 14-15. Print.Langer, Emily. Norma McCorvey, Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion nationwide, dies at 69. The Washington Post February 28, 2017.  Ã‚  Prager, Joshua. The Accidental Activist. Vanity Fair Hive February 2013.  Skelton, Chris. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). Justia.  Supreme Court Cases: Roe v. Wade. The Interactive Constitution of the United States. Prentice-Hall 2003.Ziegler, Mary. The Framing of a Right to Choose: Roe V. Wade and the Changing Debate on Abortion Law. Law and History Review 27.2 (2009): 281-330. Print.