Sunday, December 9, 2012
Part 1 is titled "Contemporary Slavery: Developing and Preying on Vulnerability". It explains the socio-political backdrop to worker exploitation and full-fledged slavery in Thailand. The two groups that face the greatest levels of exploitation are Burmese migrants and rural hill tribe Thai, both of whom lack critical citizenship rights, thereby increasing their vulnerability.
Part 2 is titled "Contemporary Slavery: How's that Shrimp You're Eating?". This post examines the shrimping industry in Thailand - one that doesn't receive much media attention, but is extremely large, and rests upon massive labour exploits.
Part 3 is titled "Contemporary Slavery: Connections to Thailand's War on Drugs". This post ties Thailand's harsh war against methamphetamines that began in 2003, describing how such punitive and violent measures carried out by the state exacerbated social inequality and was particularly harmful to those groups in Thailand that were already most vulnerable to being exploited.
Part 4 is titled "Contemporary Slavery: Thailand's Matrix of Domination". In this final post, I discuss how hill tribe Thai males are driven into commercial sexual exploitation, operating in an extreme limited opportunity structure.
Click on any of the links above to read the stories; in each one there are additional links, videos, and pictures accompanying the content.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
"We believe in a generous America, in a compassionate America, in a tolerant America open to the dreams of an immigrant's daughter who studies in our schools and pledges to our flag..."
"America, I believe we can build on the progress we've made and continue to fight for new jobs and new opportunities and new security for the middle class. I believe we can keep the promise of our founding, the idea that if you're willing to work hard, it doesn't matter who you are or where you come from or what you look like or where you love. It doesn't matter whether you're black or white or Hispanic or Asian or Native American or young or old or rich or poor, abled, disabled, gay or straight. You can make it here in America if you're willing to try."
Well, in reality, I disagree because discrimination and inequality still exists. Too many Americans won't keep that promise because America is still ensconced with significant bigotry and ignorance that won't let so many minorities succeed no matter how hard they work. However, the ideal is nice to express, and let's face it, you would never hear such a message from Romney or really any other prominent Republican candidate that speaks appreciably to that level of diversity.
So, now, it's time to hold President Obama to being the progressive president he claimed to be four years ago. There's no campaigning to worry about four years from now. Get it done!
Monday, November 5, 2012
Romney's support of Mourdock is a classic example of patriarchy, where the institutions of government and religion combine to constrain women’s choices. The connection to government is obvious (these are politicians talking here), but also note Mourdock’s quote, which pays homage to “God.” Hence, it is simultaneously government and religion that are used in tandem as institutions of social control, which would render most women criminal if they were to choose abortion under a Romney presidency. As stated on Romney’s official website, “[Romney] believes that the right next step is for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade” (and notably limits “defining marriage as between one man and one woman”).
Romney, in fact, supports banning abortion except in cases of rape or incest, or to save the woman’s life. He’s running ads that tout these exceptions as evidence of his moderation, but what kind of moderate wants to criminalize 93 percent of all abortions? Among those who would not be lucky enough to qualify for Romney’s exceptions are women carrying fetusus with fatal conditions, the mentally ill and pregnant women at risk for any injury short of death. In reality, Romney would criminalize most abortions for rape and incest victims, too, since most rapes and incest are not reported…
Saturday, November 3, 2012
Such trends noted above by Lawrence Wilkerson help to explain that which has been made clear by the Washington Post -- the upcoming presidential election looks to be one very much divided along racial lines. As noted in the article, comparing trends from 2008, "Romney appears to have made no inroads in chipping away at Obama's support among Hispanics and African Americans" and further, that "Fully 91 percent of Romney’s support comes from white voters." Oddly enough, the Romney preference among white voters is tied heavily to perceptions that Romney would do more to help the American economy:
There is no way to tell from these findings what role, if any, racial prejudice may play on either side of the racial gap. But the data suggest that concern about the economy is amplifying the division, as Obama’s decline in support among white voters appears to be closely linked to views of his handling of the economy. And yet minorities have suffered severe unemployment and housing foreclosures in the current economy as well.
Romney's economic policies, however, are most clearly illustrated in action. Production for Romney paraphernalia is not happening in the United States. Rather, it is happening abroad. How exactly does that promote American jobs and the broader economy? It doesn't. See picture, below:
And if considering global perceptions, the BBC polled a sample of 21,797 people from 21 countries to get a gauge on the world's preference between Obama and Romney. Only Pakistan showed a preference for Romney, and a narrow one at that. Those polled from every other country expressed a strong preference for Obama, exhibiting the more positive global reputation Obama has achieved over the past four years. See the graphic, below:
We don't live in isolation, and the United States is not an ethnically homogeneous country. Romney is NOT the answer.
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Personally, I believe the meso reasons to be more valid. A desire towards some form of hegemonic masculine status in my experience appears to drive more men into practicing MMA, as hobbyists, semi-pro's, and full on professionals. I wonder if Logan's interviews actually revealed that a large number of MMA practitioners followed WWF back in the 1980s. I am sure some did, perhaps even a substantial proportion (I know I did). But my guess is a large number didn't as well, and even despise the comparison.
Also, there's quite a few mentions of MMA being compared to a "fight to the death" kind of thing, or at least using that kind of sensationalized language. That's just not necessary. The sport's been around long enough that any critique can and should be more objective. It's not 2 guys trying to kill each other in practice/competition, though the mainstream MMA media may present it that way to sell tickets.
And finally, the close noting that MMA is an escalation of violence from WWF/WWE is a bit premature. Are there really more injuries or deaths from sanctioned MMA than pro wrestling? More steroid use? Are the social messages expressed in MMA (harmful as they often are) more harmful than those expressed in professional wrestling? I'd like to see some empirical evidence to prove MMA is more dangerous than pro wrestling and the most dangerous sport out there before such things are stated.
Friday, September 14, 2012
"You just got remember that mine and Dana White's relationship is like we're a husband and wife. I do the man's stuff around the house. I do the fighting, all the man's stuff and he does all the woman stuff - all the yapping. He's more the 21st century, he's the one who goes out and probably makes more money. Where as I might make sure the house is clean, and all that, but at the end of the day I still do the man's stuff - the lawn, the fighting, all the hard stuff. It's one of those relationships were there's love and hate. We're in one of those things like a speed bump. I don't know if we need a separation from one another. I think The Ultimate Fighter was our separation ... but now we're back together and holding hands and all that stuff."
The most interesting part of Nelson's quote is how he likens White to his wife in order to insult him by (1) spotlighting their income differences, (2) associating White's higher income to women's upward social mobility, and therefore (3) trivializing women's increased income relative to so-called "men's work" (mowing the lawn, fighting, and hard stuff).
As women in societies move closer to men in various spheres, such as work, men will cope with their gendered insecurities by finding ways to re-claim their power and control over women. Hence, with the so-called man-cession, "real" men like Nelson can still point out their physical, rugged masculinity as identifiers of superiority over women (and feminized men), even those who have higher incomes.
And this is how hegemonic masculinity works. Whether it's in jest or not, men try to feminize others (other men and women) as a way to put them down. White could just as easily come back and feminize Nelson by insulting his physique, lower income, or lack of power in the mixed martial arts industry as un-manly. So basically in this hyper-masculine context, anything associated with femininity is bad.
Picture via MMAMania.com.
Monday, February 20, 2012
Check it out. Come on, lots of people watch the Super Bowl for the commercials, not the game itself. The link, again: Hegemonic Masculinity in Super Bowl Commercials
Friday, February 10, 2012
Look, I cannot just sit back and let Jeremy Lin of the New York Knicks keep blowing up without posting something about it. I have something coming up in Sociology In Focus, but there's a bit of a lag. Dude just knocked down 38 on the Lakers while playing at home in MSG. That's four more than Kobe and the most by any Knicks player this season.
I'll insert the link to the SIF piece when it's up.
UPDATE: The post is now up -- "Linsanity: Jeremy Lin: Dispelling the Model Minority Myth."
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Okay, one more entry I've posted over at Sociology In Focus uses Max Weber's element of legal-rational authority to dissect the pepper spraying that happened at the University of California, Davis back in November 2011, as well as the London uprisings around the same time. Actually the entry is more focused on the legal-rational authority granted to police forces in these cases -- how their authority contributes to and excuses their perpetration of physical violence.
Link to the story: Social Movements and State Violence. Videos for analysis over there...
The other thing I've started at Sociology In Focus is a series on the sociology of mixed martial arts. Thus far, I've made three posts in the series:
- The Sociology of MMA: How Do You Define Violence?
- The Sociology of MMA: Hegemonic Masculinity Unleashed
- The Sociology of MMA: Do 'Real' Men Have Emotions?
No doubt, more on the way in the months and years to come.
I have been completely neglecting my "Grumpy Sociologist" blog here since also blogging over at Sociology In Focus. Back in January, while walking around one of the innumerable mini-malls in Irvine, California, I noticed as I do every year in January the massive sales.
I started seeing clothing items on sale for $5, some for less, as merchants attempted to get their un-sellable merchandise off the shelves. Were they still turning a profit? Hard to say, but it made me think about how inexpensive these clothing items were for the middle-class Irvine shoppers. And why were they so cheap? Because they were made by exploited labour, perhaps even enslaved labour.
I get into more at Sociology In Focus here: By Hitting Up Those Post-Holiday Sales, Are You Supporting Contemporary Slavery?. Check it out if you have a minute.