This'll set the pulses Racing!

"Is the word race helpful or unhelpful?"

I feel that race, the word itself, brings about different images, both positive and negative.

On one hand, race can be a person's nationality. Their race may be brought up what they were brought up with, or where they were born etc.
If race is to be seen in this light, then it is purely positive. It may symbolise something very dear to each person, their heritage. If I was to consider myself a certain race, it would be Scottish or possibly British, and I see these nationalities as positive, because they are dear to me.
In that context, the word "race" is helpful.

However, on the other hand, race can lead to racism. Race may be simply a way to label people, and often leads to stereotypes. There are very common stereotypes and they are often formed through race, e.g. lazy mexicans, hairy italians, fat americans etc.
Race is usually seen as something of difference and is a tool to discriminate. The reason we label everyone else's race is because we know our own so well. We don't automatically assume that British is a race, because it is our way of life. But when asylum seekers move into British territory, their race becomes abundantly clear. We see it as a difference and a way to discriminate.

So, in my opinion, the word "race" is both helpful and unhelpful, depending on the context in which it is used. And I understand that this is probably the most vague answer that could possibly be given to this question, but it holds the most true.

Equality in Society

"We all live in an equal society... don't we?"

No. Unfortunately we don't. Not yet. If, at all, we reach the goal of having an equal society, it will take generations to complete. There are still groups in society that are not equal to other groups in society.
Okay, so in Britain we have the NHS, a free medical system for every UK citizen. And yes, we do have free education at primary, secondary and higher levels. And housing systems from the government make sure that everyone has a house.

But do the above things automatically mean an equal society?

In my opinion, no. Because this is a very upper class view of the Government's approach to helping people. The NHS doesn't actually treat everyone equally, despite what Beveridge proposed. It is down to where you live and what constituency you are in, so it often means that the poorer people in our society do, in fact, recieve worse treatment than richer people. Also, private medical care is there, for those who can afford it, which treats people extremely well. So there is still inequality in this field.
Also, with education, it is all down to where you live again. If you live near a nice school, the chances of you getting in are quite high. But how nice schools do you know that are situated next to high-rise flats or council-housing schemes? And with Universities and Colleges. Yes, in Scotland they are free for entry, but how do poorer people expect to pay for their child to live in, possibly, a whole other city for 3+ years?
And with council housing, I don't feel I should have to list examples, but how often do you see a social-housing scheme and think "I would quite like to live here"

Tony Blair said: "The Class War is Over"

This statement is not true. There are still very obvious classes in our society, and we label people accordingly because of these. People who have more money have a better standard of living, and this will ALWAYS be the case. This isn't a problem as such, as there will always be people more deserving of more money than others. But problems with class are rooted at the core of society, so there won't be any change. If a young child is at primary or secondary school, living in social housing, not eating the right foods and his parents are on benefits or working in manual labour, low-paying jobs. Where do they get their inspiration from?
As long as there are different classes in one generation, this will affect the others.

Feminism or Meninism?

Feminism is the sociological belief that all sociological theories are set up to put women down and are male driven. Feminists believe that women are oppressed in normal life, be it marriage, the work-life, education etc.

Radical feminists see all walks of life as institutions to put women down and sustain patriarchy. They can even go as far as to believe that all men will look to hurt women to make up for their powerlessness in society.

And it is these general views of males being all macho, fists-a-pumping, fighting animals who are ready to put females down because they may be weaker than they are, that I have a big problem with. While domestic abuse is still a large problem in our society, it is not right to claim that all men will, if the opportunity arises, decide to hurt their spouse. So much has changed in terms of male/female equality that it is not right to turn around and say that all men hold these macho, out-of-date views. Just because something happens in a minority, it does not mean that whole groups can be blamed and stereotyped as being the same.

We Are Family!

"Families have little purpose nowadays"

Families, in Marxist views, are to help create the workforce. To help work the machine that is society. Well, if that was applied today and if that was the only reason for families nowadays, they would be rendered pointless!
Families are so varied nowadays that it is difficult to label what they are exactly there for. Not only in the numbers of people in each family, or the number of parents in a family, but the people in families. Now that it is more socially acceptable for teenagers and children in families to break the mould and be quite different, families don't stabilise normal workforces anymore. People are more inspired to go on to bigger and bolder things, and there are a lot more possibilities open to people nowadays.

But we can't say that is all. The numbers of people in families do also come into play. With a lot of children in a family, competition is ripe to be regarded as the "Top Child". This encourages higher expectations and hopes, or it may lead to low self esteem. Also, with single parent families, education and economic factors may be hindered and again self esteem is lowered.

Because of changing times, the idea of the normal family has changed, as many more couples are opting for divorce, and couples are choosing to give their children up for adoption.

It will never be the case that families have NO purpose, as they are the role models and primary caregivers to people. But to say that they are not as much of a necessity nowadays? That is more likely.

I come from a middle class background with both parents at home, so it is difficult to put myself in the shoes of someone with divorced parents or foster parents. But i feel in general life the family is not as entirely driven as before. They still look to provide the best for their child, but seeing as today "the best" can be absolutely anything, it is now more up to the children to push themselves forward into work.

But stable families are still useful to provide role models for their kids. If children see happy families with monogamous parents, they may wish for this when they are older and be driven to gain the same success from relationships.

So while the family may not be just as useful nowadays, it will never be deemed pointless!

Ooh Arr, That Be One O' Them Structuralist Theories!

Structuralist theories are sociological theories that believe that society is split into different segments (Education, the family, the law etc) and that each of these segments defines us throughout our lives.

There are two main structuralist theories. The first is the Functionalist Theory, fronted by Emile Durkheim and Talcott Parsons, which sees society as an organic thing, and everyone within it grows through said sections in society. The other is the Conflict Theory, fronted by Karl Marx, which is based on economic sections in society. It basically states that whatever economic situation you are in as a child, that is what class you will end up in when working (eg poor people will end up in the working class) and that each segment of society defines you and moulds you into the type of person to fit into that class.

And while I am in full awe of the spectacle that is Karlos Marx's beard, I feel there is a problem with the Conflict Theory. He makes it all too simple. To simply say that all aspects of society mould us into certain classes is too blunt. Theories have to be quite vague as there are always exceptions to rules. And I feel there are too many exceptions to the Conflict Theory for it to be proven.

Whereas Talcum Powders and Emily Durkham-And-Cheese's Functionalist theory is easier to agree with. I feel that there is new learning in every part of society. And while Marx's theory helps to explain why people rebel and why there is conflict in society, the same can be said of the Functionalist theory. I see it as: throughout every segment of society we are taught to cope with and integrate with that segment, but there are people who understand this wrong. Each segment helps a person to grow as more of an individual, but people can pick up on the growth wrong. Not everyone grows in the same way after living through each segment.

Mydentities

Identities define us.
We all have our own identity formed through different aspects of our personality. Opinions and preferences are part of it, but also race, gender. Even hair colour can come into play.
Simple traits or opinions are part of a person's full identity, and they help people form opinions and even relationships.
Because people tend to be more inclined to associate with people of similar identities to themselves, group identities can be formed. For example, music and fashion sense brought in the teenage phenomenon of emo and scene kids, and they quickly became labelled as a group and had, to the outside world, a similar identity.
It is when identities turn into stereotypes that problems can arise. People assuming they know a person through one or two defining identity features. This poses a problem for minorities espescially, as that one identity feature can lead people to think they know the rest.
It is ultimately our personality on the whole that sets our identity, and within groups everyone has there own identity. Be it the angry one, the quiet one or even the player, identities give people their own place. On the whole, groups may appear to have similar identities. Students, OAPs, Twilight fans etc, but an identity means diversity, which means it is nearly impossible to identify a full group of people, or even two people, by exactly the same identity, because everything we do or like identifies us.

What A Waster!

"schemes are full of pregnant teenagers, unemployed, semi-literate thugs on benefits. They are all a bunch of wasters!"

While it is true that schemes are not the prettiest places on the planet, it is not true that we cannot label all inhabitants as "wasters". While there may be some people who live there who are 'smackheads' or 'junkies', it is unfair to label all people who are on benefits or who are on low paying jobs as wasters. These people may be trying to achieve more and may aspire to live the glamorous life, but tough economic positions or too many children may cause financial strain. Or, another high possibility, is the burden of drug addiction scarring families and draining finances. And while it is true that these people are to blame for falling into addiction, it is not their problem that they cannot recover from it. While they recieve money, it is too much to ask that they will save the money to do up their house or buy a nice car. The fact is, they recieve a nearly no money and have to live on this, and drugs give them the opportunity to escape from this problem.

Education is at the root of these problem lives. Not only through schooling, but also through basic education that all people get. Learning from siblings, parents and peers. The high pregnancy may stem from a lack of sex eduxation at school, lack of education on contraception or lack of education on abortion opportunities.
Unemployment may stem from lack of basic schooling education, lack of warning and education on the future and what may be needed to achieve higher eductaion.

Of course there are excuses for people's problems. People who live in poor housing and have health problems can always blame society or the government for not providing, when in fact enough may have been provided but they just weren't ready and willing to use it.

What we see as a poor lifestyle may not be deemed as poor by themselves. They may be content with a poorer lifestyle because their upbringing was very similar and they do not know any better: they may be somewhat proud with how they have turned out and expect their children
to turn out the same way.

It is all about our moral views on others, and comparisons made between us and them. Also the definition of a person who is a "waster". A person who gets involved with drugs from an early age and lives on the dole, dying at the age of 28 may be a waster. But a person who achieves 5 A's at higher level and opts NOT to go to university is surely also a waster as they are wasting the opportunities given to them.

The given statement (found at the top of this page) is a total generalisation. It is a personal view of a judgemental person without all the facts. It is wrong to view someone as less of a person or as a "waster" because they achieve less. The problems for them achieving less may be in our society: high drug numbers and frequent use, poor parenting, poor education, falling in with the wrong crowds etc. But it is wrong to generalise all people who do not have as good a life as us in terms of quality as "wasters".