I agree with the text that with individual discrimination that it is better to address the problem with the individual, implement a punishment, and move on from the issue. However, with institutional discrimination, because it is pervasive and ongoing within business and organizations deciding who deserves rewards. It is difficult to see this in everyday interactions, but that is because it is tied into the way everything is done within the organization. An example the book gives is a performance evaluation for advancement. This is very common in business. I experience a job evaluation for all of my raises or attempts of advancement at walmart. However, because I am a young woman I never had enough “experience” to get past the “job evaluation” part of advancement. Every time they always chose a male that had less education than I did so I do not feel the evaluation was of any purpose except to hold individuals back from higher positions. I find it very interesting that lookism is being addressed by the ADA in any way. It does seem that it would very hard to prove that you are unattractive and that it causes impairment. The authors’ suggest the looking glass as a more appropriate metaphor because it recognizes the complicated nature and obvious hidden barriers to advancement in organizations such as stereotypes, attractiveness, or choices. I think that this relates to what I said about my experience trying to advance in walmart. There are systems in place to make things look fair, but you have to use a looking glass to see what is actually in place with these systems such as job evaluations that are set up in a way to make undesirable populations advance. Being forced into a lower position, which makes it harder to reach a higher level. In the article about Native American unemployment the issue of transportation is huge. One question I have always been asked in every interview was if I had my own vehicle or reliable transportation. This is important because it creates a pattern that is extremely hard to break that if you do not have a car you cannot get a job, and if you do not have a job you cannot save for a car. Another issue I feel is that the interviewers did not understand Native American culture at all and allowed their own biases influence the way they interpreted information while conducting interviews. If the interviewers asked more direct questions instead of open ended questions I think that the Native American would be able to answer in a way that did not discredit their abilities. The topic of women of welfare is always very controversial. Many people think that women are cheating the system. However, my question is who is being punished if we take welfare away? Would we be punishing the women, or the children? Women are disadvantaged in the workplace and have less chance of promotion. They make less for the same job as a man. The issue of women having more children to collect more money is simply a myth. Some women may do this. However, the majority of women on welfare do not just have children to collect more aid. Some of the legislature that I read about in a different class covered an issue in Michigan where women had to work a certain number of hours a week to obtain any aid. This created an issue where women were working 60+ hours a week at multiple minimum wage jobs with no advancement opportunities still living below the poverty line. While this is a huge issue that needs to be addressed I do not know the correct way to fix it. I always come back to asking who are we really hurting with limiting resources to women.