The Scope and Definition of Evil Essay Example for Free

The Scope and Definition of Evil Essay The Chinese symbol, Yin Yang, have always amazed me. It has been believed to be a symbol of the balance of the forces of good and evil in the world. It speaks of the coexistence of good and evil; that each cannot overthrow the other or that one cannot subsist without the other. Thus, in the concept of evil and its meaning, it is only proper that good should come with it. But then, if we speak of evil, we are already implicitly speaking of goodness. Consequently, what then is the definition of evil? To what extent does the concept of evil grasp? In the first place, is there really such a thing as evil? Evil has so many definitions in the different contexts that it can invade. In Christian theology, evil is simply that which should not exist at all (Sharpe, 1909). Evil is the summation of all the opposition and negative events and situations that can render suffering to mankind. In popular Christian discussions, evil amounts to one thing, that is, the absence of good. This is somewhat in contrary to the concept that lies within the Yin Yang symbol. In relation to Christianity, other traditional religions claim that evil is an active force that drives anyone into doing acts of violence and any other deed that can jeopardize human life or life itself. Thus, terrorist attacks, torture and murder are some examples of the different forms of evil. In general terms, evil is intentional behavior or stimulation of others resulting to events that demean, dehumanize, harm, destroy or kill innocent people (Zimbardo, 2003, p. 3). It does not only include the very action of violence but also evil is something that urges one to do immoral acts that defame people. Furthermore, evil cannot only reside tangibly; it can also exist in the mind. Thus, evil can be regarded as a group of thoughts in one’s mind that plan to or wish to inflict harm or death to certain people. The nature of evil can be classified into three types. The first of which is physical evil that can cause bodily harm or harm to man’s properties (Sharpe, 1909). It is therefore physically evil to rob someone. It is consequently the same evil to shot someone. One very famous example of this type of evil is the September 11 terrorist attack on World Trade Center twin towers. Another type of evil is called moral evil. As its name implies, it concerns the principles that a person has or a particular society possesses. Moral evil encompasses the deviations and violations from the accepted set of beliefs that a person or an event causes. Such evil is observed in the tradition of cannibalism which is one of the many ancient practices that is condemned by the major religions of the world. In the modern times, an example of moral evil is the view of Christians against contraception. To the Roman Catholic Church, the use of contraception is moral evil. It violates the moral belief that only God can decide when or how one will have a baby. It violates the belief that though there is still is no physical evidence of a life in the tummy of a woman, life can already exist. The third type of evil is known as the metaphysical evil. This evil is very complicated since it does not speak of physical or conceptual evil in the sense that the two former types exist. Metaphysical evil does not involve human beings but rather the environment they live in and the things found in it (Sharpe, 1909). It is related to nature, plants, animals the elements of the world. Surprising as it may seem, we surely have encountered such. Pain, harm or damage inflicted to animals or anything comprising the things found in nature is evil. But it is not the same evil which can be regarded to human since no one can actually define the emotions and feelings, if such exist, of the things and creatures in the environment. Thus, metaphysical evil is only a representation of the evil that can exist in nature. Looking at the different types of evil, we would certainly perceive the relativity of its concept. The evil that a group of persons may consider can be considered good by another society. An act of violence condemned by others may be an act or heroism to some. Hence, there is no real line that separates the good and evil of the world. Who then has the right set of limitations regarding evil? Spinoza pointed out that due to this complication, evil can be judged by everyone according to what his or her conscience dictates (2005, p. 135). If so, then, there is no exact and distinguishing rule between what is evil and what is good. This may sound confusing. In extreme cases, it actually may be simple. If one is choosing between two things in extremes, such as life and death, surely, it will be easy to decide that death is evil and life is good. Nevertheless, if we look into more complex situations wherein the two choices are both good and still have to decide which is better and which one is not, it can be very difficult. In the same manner is when a person is confronted with two evil things where he has to judge the lesser evil. It is thus proper to state that evil is that which is the lesser good. In another explanation of evil, it is discussed as â€Å"knowing better but doing worse† (Zimbardo, 2003, p. 3). This may somehow simplify the issue of judgment. What is evil is what is deemed to be evil by one’s conscience. If a person’s mind speaks of an action as harmful, and yet the person continues to execute such endeavor, it is then considered evil. On the other hand, this opens the possibility that not all violence can be viewed as evil. If the person performing the act is not aware that what he is doing is a form of violence, then it is not evil at all. To be guilty of evil is to deliberately do an act of cruelty knowing it causes pain to other beings. Furthermore, deliberately doing a perceived evil and taking pleasure in it is far worse. Yet, can anyone be considered innocent of evil because of ignorance of it? In a different context, ignorance itself is evil since the idea of evil is that which opposes or negates. Another aspect that can be broadened in the concept of evil is the source from whence it came. In the book, â€Å"Augustine on Evil† by Gillian Evans, evil is asserted to come completely from a person’s will (1994, p. 98). In Christian theology, evil can be the product of Satan, also known as Lucifer, who somehow resolved to build his own empire. It is also believed that Satan’s kingdom is the world. It is therefore justifiable to state that evil can come from man’s will since man is of the world. Nevertheless, evil can also be due to the presence of good. How can one come into such a conclusion? In the earlier discussions, we have defined that evil is the absence of good. It is the counterpart of goodness. Thus, the existence of good can account for the existence of evil. Categorically, one can also say that evil thrive in society because pain and violence is visible. But then, violence and terror are products of evil. In sum, evil can ironically come out of good. Without goodness, evil cannot subsist. To further explain this point, let us take for example the existence of good people. The existence of good persons can attract what we consider evil since unconsciously, by being good, people become prone to abuse which can be a ground for evil actions. According to Alford, evil is an encounter with dread (1997, p. 3). But then, let’s get back to the Chinese symbol, yin yang. Observing it intently, we will see the equal line that differentiates the white from the black. It speaks of balance and justice between the two forces, if there is such a thing as justice between evil and good. For every evil that can transpire there is corresponding equal good that can come out of the situation. Further examination of the symbol will affirm that good cannot be intertwined with evil in a way of blending. There is no such thing as a grey idea of good and evil. If a thing is evil, it will remain evil though much of the modern people claim it to be otherwise. If it is good, then it will forever remain good. No evil can be completely evil because in the process, good will always sprout out. It is true, many of us have experienced evil in our lives but it is seldom realized that the hurts evil can bring to us is countered. With every evil experience, lessons are learned. Without evil, we will never understand and enjoy goodness, just as we won’t understand a smile if we don’t recognized a frown in the first place.

A Letter Concerning the Tuition Fee Increase in the Campus Essay Example for Free

A Letter Concerning the Tuition Fee Increase in the Campus Essay This academic year in our school had been very exciting and full of learning for the students. The school had been efficient enough in providing us the quality education that students’ need in preparation of their future careers. However it had been a serious issue in the campus among us, students, the continued increase in our tuition and other fees.   Students see, that in order to escalate further the quality of education in our school, the school has to face strenuous modifications in technology, books, and other school facilities. However, there would always a need for students to be consulted first about the issue, because these matters would always concern us. Along with the increase in the tuition fee is the increase in all other fees. Why? First, if the school would not fight for a greater state subsidy, then the school had to pay for the bills, the salary as well as to the technology and materials it would employed. With this matter, the budget would come from the tuition of the students and everything else would be increased; Internet fee, laboratory fee, school paper, etc. Second, education is supposed to be a right and not just a privilege, but with the continued increase in the tuition fee, along with other miscellaneous fees in the campus, there had been an apparent decline in the enrollment rate compared to the previous years. This only shows that few students were able to access the right to education because of the increase. Hence, there is a significant relationship between tuition fee increase and to the limited access of students to education (Dalton 2006). A similar study from the Rand Corporation in 1995 indicated that for every 10percent increase in the tuition fee of the students, there would be a 1.97 percent in the enrollment of the focus of study. Third, the effect of tuition fee and other fee increases would be felt less by those of the middle class brackets. Most of the burden would be felt by those in the lower class; usually with among black and with ethnic backgrounds. Accordingly, majority of the students in most schools were usually coming from the lower bracket and they were the ones who were greatly affected. The school is the only way for these students to move to the next ladder in the society. The tendencies for these students are to dropout or to transfer to a cheaper school with low educational standards. Needless to say, the educational preparation that they got is not enough to equip them for a high paying job in the future. The tuition fee increase that the school implemented is a subtle permit for the state to less care for the educational welfare of its citizens. Students are wary of the fact, that because of the tuition fee increase, we have to burden ourselves with part time jobs more than double just to compensate for the shortage in budget. Students recognized that tuition fee increase in needed to uplift the educational quality in this school. However, it is too fast and too soon to implement. Students are not prepared yet; emotionally, physically and financially.   There was no consultation in the increase in fees. It had always been our right to know and the responsibility for this school to be transparent. The students carried the baggage of financial hardship just to beautify the school, but the education that we got before then was still the same as now. Except of course in slight innovations in the laboratory facilities and in technology, the same education system we got from the school. If tuition fee increase is really bound to happen, we wanted to be prepared for it. We wanted an apparent positive change in the learning that we got; of course it is not to say that we got no learning from this school, it is just that, the change in learning is just minimal. This school has been our battleground to combat poverty, to uplift our situations and to gain learning. If the school is to increase its tuition fee and other fees, we expect that it would also provide subsidy through scholarship, or other alternative solutions to augment our financial difficulties. As well as it is the responsibility of our parents to finance our education; it is also the responsibility of the state to provide to its people the right to education. But how could we get this if tour very right has now become a mere privilege. The sad fact is, not the privilege of the majority but of the few only.   If we are destined to suffer from the tuition fee and other fee increases, would it be right that we would also demand great changes in everything. Would the payment that we give, be enough for us to pose subordinate command over our instructors and over other employees; anyway, we paid for them. Students believe, that in this school, students of characters should be made and not just a mere passive, technologically dependent ones. We need support to develop our minds, which is the role of this school. But where would we go now if this school would deprive us of that need? We seek to be consulted first, we need data of its great benefits on us, and we need alternatives for the increase that is accessible for everybody and not only for the few. Sincerely, [Name of the Sender] [Position/Occupation] Works Cited Dalton, McGuinty. â€Å"Canandian Federation of students.† 8 March 2006 http://www.reducetuitionfees.ca/en/issue/watch_video_of_the_tuition_fee_increase_announcement

The Development of Lesbian and Queer Theory in America

The Development of Lesbian and Queer Theory in America An Examination of the Advancement of Lesbian Theory Criticism –  America: 1950’s-1990’s. Introduction Lesbianism in American society is a concept imbued with social, political, legal, aesthetic and literary codes and conventions, whether considered in 1950 or currently. In the past half century, lesbianism has not only expressed itself as specific articulations of sexuality and lifestyle, but also of ideology and political aspiration. Sexuality has remained essential to conceptualisations of lesbianism in this time span, with its political formulations, societal censures, and social accommodations anchored to the vicissitudes of feminist theory and practice. American social and political morays which have prescribed female functionality in post World War Two years, have cast mainstream female identity in terms of motherhood, wifeliness and domesticity, a formulation of personhood deeply challenged by advancing lesbian ideology and praxis. In this light, one of the significant threads of lesbian theory and criticism to be evaluated pertains to feminism’s examination of female identity in the past 50 years, and the status and reaction of lesbianism within this paradigm. This process encompasses events and issues pertaining to the biological, sexual and social validation of female gender, but also the intellectual development of modes of discourse pertaining to feminism and lesbianism, as a means of female empowerment, paralleled by considered or reactionary responses to wider societal trends. So called second wave feminism, benchmarked by the Stonewall Riots at Greenwich Village in New York in 1969, targeted women’s liberation not only at the level of law, and concrete denotations of inequality and injustice, (akin to feminism’s first wave), but at the more visceral level of societal and political attitudes and values, including the ideological decoupling of female personhood from male sexuality. Since the early 1990’s, the ideological and theoretical formulations of lesbianism have been advancing in disparate lines, at the bidding of post-structuralist or postmodernist discourses. Some of lesbianism’s intellectual impulses have focused upon notions of sexual and personal identity, and in spite of their intellectual sophistication have lost their momentum and coherence, collapsing into an â€Å"ambiguous polymorphy,†[1] whilst attempting to dispense with unhelpful binary oppositional definitions of gender or sexuality. Conversely, an intellectual strength of third wave feminism and post 1980’s lesbian criticism has been the attention to personhood, the integrity of the self and the integration of public and private moralities. Chapter 1 Homosexuality after World War I was broadly viewed as â€Å"an offence against the family and social expectations about gender.†[2] A doctor’s post World War 1 contemporary observations noted that it was â€Å"improper to utter the word homosexuality, prurient to admit its existence and pornographic to discuss the subject.†[3] The same doctor reflects the radical difference between American and European cultural and sexual values, implying that while Europe was perceived by Americans as decadent, European novels could discuss homosexuality openly within a European setting, yet American novels could not, since â€Å"if it existed at all, (as) our soil is unfavourable, our climate prejudicial, our people too primitive, too pure.†[4] Furthermore, Fone contends that homosexuality had come to be seen as a â€Å"subversion of America itself.† [5] Fone also observes that since war is a â€Å"time of fear and upheaval-it produces a virulent, xenophobic str ain of homophobia† tantamount to conceiving â€Å"sexual difference as a betrayal of American values†.[6] Retrospectively implicit among these anecdotal pre World War II dismissals of homosexuality, is the notable silence concerning any distinction between male and female homosexuality, or gay and lesbian sexual phenomenon. The grip of patriarchy was so overarching that lesbianism did not even feature as a notable offence against social sensibilities. Be that as it may. The social discourse regarding lesbianism in the 1950’s was in part a response to the repositioning of women due to World War II. As war demanded heightened US defences and reconstituted the nation’s labour force, women formed the Women’s Army Corps (WAC) and were seconded to non-traditional jobs, accounting for one third of the work force. According to Kennedy and Davis, â€Å"World War II had a tremendous impact on lesbian life, by offering lesbians more opportunities for socialising and meeting other women.†[7] Since the war â€Å"gave more independence to all women†¦ lesbians (were) more like other women and less easy to identify. Since all women were able to wear pants to work and to purchase them in stores off the rack, butches who only wore pants in the privacy of their home in the 1930s could now wear them on the streets.†[8] Furthermore, in Buffalo women gained access to better jobs since productivity was heightened by war manufacturing. Since the male population of Buffalo was denuded for military service, lesbians had greater liberty to meet in public and pursue active social lives beyond hearth and home. Extensive social life revolved around â€Å"the proliferation of gay bars†[9] and despite the â€Å"mere presence of homosexuals†¦interpreted by the State Liquor Authority as constituting disorderly conduct†,[10] raids on premises were minimal in the 1940’s due to the shrewdness of business owners.[11] Concurrently, enlisted lesbians found a social space within the male world of military service since enrolment screening practices for lesbians entering the (WAC) were less stringent than for gay men.[12] In this example, the lack of status for women in the military prior to the war resulted in ill-defined screening procedures for women recruits, matched by a choice to not investigate the sexual lives of women, as the goal was to optimise the war effort.[13] The simplistic and binary designations of sexual orientation in the late 1940’s are noted by the comments from â€Å"a group of Marine Corps examiners at Camp LeJeune (who) advised their colleagues, â€Å"that women showing a masculine manner may be perfectly normal sexually and excellent military material.†[14] By the late 1940’s however, â€Å"purging of lesbians from the military became increasingly problematic. Many women were forced to deny knowing any of their friends or marry gay men to pass as heter osexual.†[15] Ominously, â€Å"mid 1950’s Navy officials secretly acknowledged that the homosexual discharge rate had become much higher for the female than the male.† [16] When the end of the war brought a resumption of traditional family roles, there were no alternate social prescriptions for women apart from marriage, and enduring singleness subjected females to social disapproval, while the â€Å"aggressive harassment of lesbians and gays was connected to this glorification of the nuclear family and domestic sphere.Homophobia became a way of reinstituting male dominance and strict gender roles that had been disrupted by the war.†[17] The 1950’s remained a social and political milieu of â€Å"severe oppression,†[18] yet Roosevelt suggests the reduced harassment of gay bar culture and the desire of public lesbians to reach out to other lesbians, marked a â€Å"significant transformation in lesbian consciousness.† [19] The emergence of tough butch lesbian sub-culture in the 1950’s, was, according to Roosevelt, a consequence of gay bar life and working class female job creation during World War II.[20] Nonetheless, â€Å"alcohol, insecurity, and repression, in combination with the tough butch image, made fights among tough and rough lesbians a prominent part of the 1950s landscape which increased concern and attention from the larger culture.† [21] Furthermore, the prominence of lesbians and male homosexuals holding positions within the American government agencies in the 1950’s was a matter of growing consternation, in light of the neo-conservatism and right wing extremism of this period. The political tirade against ‘un-American activities typified by the McCarthy led Senate committee inquiries and public hearings, not only felt virtue was found in the purging of communist allegiances and sentiments, but also coupled homosexuality and lesbianism with such perceived political aberrations. Politically enshrined deviance was aligned with sexually defined deviance. The 1950 congressional record addressed homosexuals in government, with congressman Miller of Nebraska addressing the House of Representatives. In an excerpt, Miller stated, â€Å"I would like to strip the fetid, stinking flesh off of this skeleton of homosexuality and tell my colleagues of the House some of the facts of nature†¦ Recently the spotlight of publicity has been focused not only upon the State Department but upon the Department of Commerce because of homosexuals being employed in these and other departments of Government. Recently Mr. Peurifoy, of the State Department, said he had allowed 91 individuals in the State Department to resign because they were homosexuals. Now they are like birds of a feather, they flock together. Where did they go? You must know what a homosexual is. It is amazing that in the Capital City of Washington we are plagued with such a large group of those individuals. Washington attracts many lovely folks. The sex crimes in the city are many.†[22] Miller went on to refer to the Sex Pervert Bill passed through Congress that he authored, exposing his jaundiced view of sexuality by alluding to the peril of homosexuals, as well as the ‘concession’ that â€Å"some of them are more to be pitied than condemned, because in many it is a pathological condition, very much like the kleptomaniac who must go out and steal.†[23] In addition to the homophobic cringe mentality epitomising the 1950’s which also applied to lesbianism, viewing any form of non-heterosexual sex as non-normative and therefore aberrant, prior to 2003, homosexuality (and by extension lesbianism), was â€Å"considered a disease, a sin (and) a threat to public order.†[24] Further reasons why lesbianism was shunned by American mainstream society in the 1950’s concerns the belief that (in the absence of research to the contrary), sexual orientation was subject to change and able to be transferred.[25] As such, a threat or fear existed that there was the possibility of an epidemic conversion from heterosexual to, homosexual, yielding a perceived need to ‘protect’ heterosexuals. Since homosexuals and lesbians were perceived to be engaging in indulgent, wayward and aberrant sexual behaviour by choice, rather than by predisposition, the persecution and stigmatization they received was not viewed as a breach o f fundamental human rights. [26] Furthermore, another potent reason for the social and political aversion to lesbianism was the belief that heterosexual minors could become homosexual by way of seduction, justifying the protection of children and youth by means of criminal law.[27] Amnesty International’s recent statement addressing the decriminalisation of homosexuality globally, demonstrates that third wave feminist ideological battles (discussed later) are far from won. The paper makes the observation that â€Å"far fewer countries explicitly criminalise lesbianism than male homosexuality†¦ as there (already) exists a raft of legislation to limit, police and control womens sexual autonomy. (The writers’ explanation that), lesbianism is not generally subject to legal sanctions may be attributed to the absence of women from the public sphere and the resulting absence of awareness of lesbianism.†[28] This social invisibility[29] of lesbianism leads to some lawmakers denying that it even exists. Miller’s attitudes not only exposed the entrenched criminalisation of homosexuality (and by association lesbianism), but the second social contrivance of lesbianism which coalesced in American culture in the 1950’s, namely its ‘medicalisation’, framing lesbianism as a social pathogen, rather than an issue of sexual difference and diversity, when compared with heterosexuality or monogamy. Such a pathological casting of lesbianism is foreseen in pre-1950’s homophobic stereotypes, where psychic differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals were fabricated – constructing the homosexual male as a deficit being without â€Å"will power, perseverance, and dogmatic energy.†[30] These social postulations of male effeminacy merely mirrored manifestations of female ‘masculinisation,’ such as the butch bar working class lesbian sub-culture, already identified. Instead of current societal emphasis upon diversity and difference, the 1950’s construction of lesbianism underscored deficit and deviance. Roosevelt draws attention to psychiatrists Henry Gay duplicitous motives. Whilst formulating a committee for the Study of Sex Variants in the 1940’s, compiling case histories of over 300 lesbians, producing ‘Sex Variants: A Study of Homosexual Patters’, with the pretext of decriminalising lesbianism, in actuality, the hidden agenda was to legitimise the psychiatry profession, and as a consequence, medicalise lesbianism, merely replacing one construct of deviance with another. [31] Lesbianism remained an immoral practice in the USA until Illinois led the change with its homosexuality decriminalisation law in 1961.[32] Prior to this time, â€Å"criminologists of the 1950’s depicted lesbian inmates as menacing social types which lead to a conflation between women’s prisons and lesbianism.†[33] The shift to greater surveillance of lesbianism in women’s prisons was reflected in â€Å"U.S. popular and political culture in magazines, pulp no vels, and movies where the, previously, comic and benign lesbian gave way to the dangerously aggressive lesbian criminal. By the 1950’s the term ‘women’s prison’ was synonymous with lesbian aggression,†[34]casting sexuality as a potential signifier of membership of a â€Å"criminal underworld, losing class, race, and privilege.† [35]Such pulp novels as those published by Ann Weldy under the pseudonym Ann Bannon, included ‘Odd Girl Out’, (1957); ‘I Am a Woman (In Love With a Woman Why Must Society Reject Me’?) (1959); ‘Women in The Shadows’, (1959);‘Journey to a Woman’ (1960) and ‘The Marriage’, (1960); and Beebo Brinker (1962), the prequel to the first four books.[36] The social limitations of same-gender sexuality identification are evident in the narrative outcomes of these early lesbian pulp fiction titles. â€Å"It was expected that the characters in a lesbian novel would ne ver receive any satisfaction from a lesbian relationship. One or both usually ended up committing suicide, going insane, or leaving the relationship.† Describing the 1950’s as the hey-day of Lesbian Pulp Fiction, Bianco noted that while its boom was inspired mainly by publishers pitching successfully to straight males seeking titillation, oppressed lesbians found a private outlet and psychic survival through such writings denied them publicly by the censoriousness of 1950’s repressive American culture. Bianco noted the publicist’s irony, since while â€Å"cover art of pulp novels always depicted ultra-feminine women, the ‘real’ lesbians in the stories were often tomboys or ‘bad girls’ who seduced innocent straight women. Reflecting psychological theories of the time, lesbian pulp writers often presented lesbianism as the result of a trauma, such as rape or incest. At the end, the innocent straight woman almost always returned to a ‘normal’ life with a man. If the lesbian protagonist wasnt herself converted to heterosexuality, she usually became an alcoholic, lost her job, or committed suicide. Publishers insisted on these kinds of moral endings, condemning lesbian sexuality even while exploiting it. In this regard, lesbian pulps followed the formula of torment and sacrifice.†[37] As such, lurid and socially shunned fictionalisations of alternate sexuality merely reinforced the ethical and moral mainstream fabric of neo-conservative American culture. Anne Bannon, as she was publicly known, reputedly led a double life, a wife and mother who frequented lesbian bars on weekends in Greenwich Village, and strikingly only disclosed her authorship of her lesbian pulp fiction novels in the 1980’s, over two decades after they were published. In the view of Bianco, her works made a significant contribution to lesbian identity in the decade prior to ‘Stonewall’.[38] Theoretical perspectives on lesbian and alternate sexuality critical to the exploration of emerging critical paradigms of lesbianism in America in the second half of the twentieth century, do not merely address the enduring and at times overwhelming dialectical tension between mainstream heterosexual ideology and homosexual reaction; but the internal dialectic within the gay community and how it evolved and responded to dimensions of itself throughout this passage of social history. The butch/fem dialectic itself illustrates the politics of sex and psychology. An increase in sexual experimentation and practices, saw a sub-cultural practice emerge, whereby butch/ fem lesbian couples assumed strictly defined roles, the ‘stone butch untouchable’ finding sexual pleasure exclusively through giving pleasure to her fem, while the fem forbidden to reciprocate, was positioned within the codes of the relationship to only receive pleasure. While some critiqued this relational dynam ic as a mere imitation of conventional masculine approaches to sex, others identified in butches â€Å"a discomfort of being (physically) touched rooted in their biology.There was also much importance placed on role distinction, an unwanted vulnerability involved in mutual lovemaking, the butch ego, and the butch’s ambivalence toward her female body. In the 1950s, Fems approached sexuality from a self-centred perspective†¦and lesbians who would not select a role, but changed roles,were derisively referred to as KiKis or AC/DC and were viewed with suspicion by other working-class lesbians.†[39] That Butches apparently disliked switching roles, imposed such rigid relational rules and maintained such static notions of sexual identity, indicated that the delineation of sexual identity within this specific lesbian subculture, was just as restrictive and jaundiced a stance as the homophobic predilections of the 1950’s heterosexual community in general. The paraly zing dialectic of shame and shamelessness which more contemporary feminists have used to identify heterosexual impediments in the slow march towards sexual liberation[40] is alive in the politics of sex and identity psychology played out in the binary relations of 1950’s butch/fem lesbianism. While many look to the Stonewall Riots at Greenwich Village New York as the defining moment for the empowerment of the modern Gay and Lesbian Liberation Movement, others trace the serious beginnings to 1951 in Los Angeles. In the 1950’s gay protest remained largely â€Å"bland, apologetic, unassertive and defensive†¦(relying) upon ‘experts’- psychiatrists, and psychoanalysts, lawyers, theologians†¦who spoke about us, to us, and at us, but never with us.† [41] By 1961, the Homophile Movement, represented in the US by a mere half dozen organizations, yet by 1969, numbering fifty or sixty such proactive bodies. The origins of the Stonewall Riots have their foundation in the â€Å"immigrant, working class neighbourhoods of New York†¦(where) gay sexuality was very much in and of the streets†¦due in part to the economic and spatial limitations of the tenements. Enclaves of lesbians interacted with their gay male counterparts, congregating in the speakeasies, tearooms and drag balls of Harlem and Greenwich Village during the 1920’s.†[42] Furthermore, Greenwich Village’s â€Å"bohemian life tolerated sexual experimentation which conferred upon the area an embryonic stature of erotica unbound†¦lesbian and gay clubs in the Village were founded on the ‘Personality Clubs’ of the bohemian intelligentsia.†[43] Writers commonly view Greenwich as a social space freed from the normal â€Å"social constraints† of modern life, a â€Å"sexual free- zone† and a homosexual Mecca for predominantly white homosexuals, as Harlem was for black p eople.[44] The anonymity of the city had become accessible to post war military linked Americans, and the semi public spaces of night cafà © and bar cultures, served to straddle the psychological and spatial divide between the privacy, domesticity and intimacy of the home, and the disclosure and defiance of public morality played out in the Greenwich domain. As Munt suggests, this cultural transition captured in Lesbian Pulp fiction, tracked â€Å"the lesbian adventurer inhabiting a twilight world where sexual encounters were acts of romanticised outlawry initiated in some back street bar and consummated in the narrative penetration of the depths of maze-like apartment buildings.† [45]Munt views Bannon’s heroines as mythologizing the â€Å"eroticised urban explorer.† [46] The value of Stonewall’s mythologisation is viewed â€Å"as a constitutive moment, while admitting its cultural fiction.†[47] Other signposts of lesbians claiming a small cultural space and some public domain in this ensuing decade indicated by Mathison Fraher, included the formation of the ‘Mattachine Society’ in 1951 (founded to aid homosexuals in the process of chronicling their collective histories and mitigate against social persecution); the initial publication of ‘One’ Magazine in 1953; the foundation of the lesbian organisation ‘Daughters of Bilitis’ in 1955; and the subsequent publication of their first magazine titled ‘The Ladder’ in 1956. Additionally, the Kinsley Report published in 1957 claimed 10% of the population to predominantly homosexual, while in 1961 Illinois became the first US state to criminalise homosexual acts. The Stonewall Riots in Greenwich Village in 1969 were closely followed by a Gay Rally in Chicago in 1970.[48] Chapter 2 Betty Friedan’s ground breaking book titled ‘The Feminine Mystique’, encapsulated the inexplicable toleration of millions of American women in the 1950’s and early 1960’s that had exclusively devoted themselves to the mutual socially prescribed roles of wife and mother. Friedan’s thesis was that this wholehearted devotion carried a contingent cost and sacrifice beyond the conscious level of comprehension of countless women, oblivious to the enormity of what they were surrendering in the process, as well as the significant parts of themselves they were denying as a result of idolising domesticity. Friedan herself in 1994 retrospectively explained the term ‘feminine mystique’ as when â€Å"women were defined only in sexual relation to men – man’s wife, sex object, mother, housewife- and never a person defining themselves by their own actions in society.†[49] She conceived of this conceptualisation of women as a stifling barrier to their wider participation within society and therefore as fully functioning human beings. It was the notion that this existential position of women was so unchallenged and so instinctively accepted that Friedan found to be so perplexing, provocatively couched by the feminist as a ‘feminine mystique’ to ridicule the notion that the socially contrived roles had acquired the status of an implacable genetic predisposition. Quidlen acclaims Friedan’s foresight in the book’s introduction, as she succeeded in scrutinising ways â€Å"women had been coaxed into selling out their intellect and their ambitions for the paltry price of a new washing machine†¦(seduced by) the development of labour saving appliances†¦(yet being) covered up in a kitchen conspiracy of denial.†[50] Friedan empowered women with confidence to reconceptualise their problems’ origins, lying beyond her marriage or herself.[51] Furthermore, Friedan was a keen observer of hypocrisy, contradiction and imbalance, with a caustic view concerning â€Å"a generation of educated housewives maniacally arranging the silverware and dressing to welcome their husbands’ home from work.†[52] Friedan as many other feminists and indeed lesbians was a strident advocate of the wider participation of women in society. Typifying ways women were alienated from mainstream society and disenfranchised by males, were prevailing attitudes towards abortion, public censure or ambivalence about a woman’s right to choose; the invisibility of sexual abuse, the lack of acknowledgement of more subtle forms of sexual harassment, as well as the economic and social disempowerment with relation to exit strategies for women to leave bad marriages. Friedan observes the 1990’s obsession with defining and crystalising female identity,[53] explaining this as a logical extension of the break down of the feminine mystique and the empowerment of women. This obsession manifested itself through a surfeit of women’s identity literature and college courses in women’s studies. [54] By logical extension, feminism did provide leverage for the liberation of lesbians and the sexual politics associated with lesbianism, in spite of Friedan’s disconnect with lesbianism as a valid expression of women’s rights. Friedan did identify menopause crises, sexual frigidity, promiscuity, pregnancy fears, child birth depression, passivity, the immaturity of American men, discrepancies between women’s tested childhood intellectual abilities and their adult achievements and the changing incidence of adult sexual orgasm in American women as issues pertaining to the emergence of a fuller identity and societal participation for women.[55] It is clear that there was little room in the consciousness of women to process the notion of their sexuality prior to the 1960’s sexual revolution, since women drew neuroses was the energy needed to juggle the conflicting roles between motherhood, domestic duty and work beyond the home and manage the personal and societal guilt which emerged from this 9at times) impossible process.[56] The social and political discourse of the era lionized women who did not lose their man, and balanced service of males, children and home. The wider world was beyond their consciousness and matters of sexual identity were not part of the public domain. Friedan contends that femininity in the 1950’s was a social construction, which, if attended to faithfully, was the only means by which women could achieve contentment and fulfilment, having historically made the blunder of trying to imitate masculinity , instead of embodying femininity, which was deemed to be characterized by sexual passi vity, nurturing maternal love and male domination.[57] Furthermore, the classification of the political domain as a male intellectual and practical bastion did nothing to facilitate women re-evaluating sexual politics and notions of political disenfranchisement in the 1950’s. In 1960, Friedan recalled that â€Å"a perceptive social psychologist showed me some sad statistics which seemed to prove unmistakably that women under age 35 years were not interested in politics.†[58] Furthermore, a false dichotomy was embedded in American national consciousness regarding female sexuality, with no middle ground, namely, women were good who came to the pedestal and whores if they expressed physical sexual desire or sought such pleasure. This dichotomous paradigm disempowered women’s sexual liberation.[59]While the feminine mystique succeeded in precluding women from considering their own sense of personal identity – who they were alone from husband, children and home,[60] the former emphasis of genetic determinism shaped women’s outlook on the path of their lives- plainly, â€Å"the identity of woman is determined by her biology.†[61] (Ironically, the same conclusion regarding lesbianism was not reached by American society for decades, prior to the 1990’s, lesbianism being widely viewed as deviant sexual conduct determined by choice rather than orientation.) Friedan counters the Freudian explanation for the desire of women to depart from the domestic centre, namely the motive of ‘penis envy’ propagated by Freud. [62]Instead, she presciently identified the objectification of women as a societal flaw, â€Å"she was, at that time, so completely defined as object by man, never herself as ‘I’, that she was not even expected to enjoy or participate in the act of sex.†[63] The gay and lesbian revolution gained momentum in the late 1960’s, infused the female with a sense of subjectivity, to counter this objectification, poignantly exemplified through the centring of the female orgasm, which emphatically declared that women were sexual beings, capable and entitled to experience sexual pleasure, rather than being victims of abuse or neutral ‘sideline observers’ of sexual activity while their husbands were actualising their virility through sex. While Friedan acknowledged that â€Å"Freudian tho ught became the ideological bulwark of American of the sexual counter-revolution in America†[64]defining the sexual nature of women, conversely Friedan speculated that an insatiable female sexual desire existed due to the vacuum created by the absence of larger life goals for woman. [65] While she countered Freud with this ex

New Reproductive Technology :: Christine Overall Abortion Technology Essays

New Reproductive Technology The article by Christine Overall, "New Reproductive Technology," discusses the issue of abortion and the new technology involved in abortions. The article makes the case that the fetus is not in the ownership of the parents, therefore when an abortion takes place the embryo should be preserved for future use. This embryo could be used at a later time by the parents, or others can adopt it. The primary issue in this article is whether or not abortion is still wrong even if the fetus is preserved after it is removed from the body of the mother. In a traditional legal abortion the fetus is removed and put to death. With new technology the fetus can be preserved so that it can still produce a child at a later time or in another persons body. The issue of abortion is broken up into two aspects according to the author: (1) the expulsion of the fetus and (2) the death to the fetus. Because of these two aspects two rights are created: (1) the right of the mother to control her own body and (2) the right of the fetus to life. With new reproductive technology such as preserving the fetus it must be assumed that the fetus will survive. There is a very great chance that fetuses will not survive outside the body of the natural mother. The chance for survival has risen over the years but is still at about a twenty percent chance of survival. For this new technology to be very successful the chance of survival would have to be much higher. It is highly possible that something could go wrong causing the child to suffer. In the early stages of this new technology what would happen if something unexpected was to occur? Would the staff in charge of taking care of the fetuses be able to change settings on an instrument supporting the fetuses? In the rare event of a power outage or a natural disaster would a generator kick in fast enough to support these fetuses? These questions are all things that would have to be dealt with in the early stages of this new technology as well as in later stages. Supporting a life is not something that can be left unattended at any time.

Hatchet :: essays research papers

Hatchet Author: Gary Paulson Main Theme: The story Hatchet’s theme is determination, perseverance and survival. Brian Robeson, whose parents are divorced, flies to visit his father in Canadian wilderness. His pilot has a heart attack and dies. Brian managed to land the plane in a lake, and escape unharmed. Now comes the hard part, surviving in the wilderness until rescued. He does have one tool to help him, a hatchet that his mother had given him as a gift. He will have to use it, his own determination, imagination, perseverance and common sense to survive. Plot Summary: This flight to see his father in the Canadian wilderness is Brains first time in an airplane. He explains this to the pilot and tells him that he is scared. The pilot feels sorry for Brian and decides to show him that flying is not very difficult. He lets Brian take the steering control and direct the line of flight for a while. Just when Brian thinks that everything is going well, the pilot has a heart attack and dies. Brian knows he must land the plane himself or die. He tries to use the radio without success. He knows that if he hits the trees, he can die, so he decides to land in the water of a lake. When the plane is in the water, he gets out through a window. He lay on the bank of the lake for a while to rest. Brian knew he needed food and shelter to survive so he set out to find both. He was very careful not to get lost or go too far from the lake where his water was. He found a cherry tree and because he was very hungry, he ate his fill. He filled his windbreake r with cherries to eat later and then managed to find a cave for shelter. He slept very well, but in the morning when he awoke, he saw a bear in the cave. He was terrified, because the bear was only about 20 feet away eating his cherries out of his windbreaker. The bear only looked at Brian and then left. The cherries must have been enough to curb his appetite! The discovery of how to make a fire was very important to Brains survival. He needed to have one at the mouth of the cave to protect him from wild animals, and to signal for help.

Infant Feeding and Weaning in Three Countries Essay -- Infant Feeding

Evolution has insured that most women are biologically equipped to give birth and then nourish their offspring for a period of time by producing milk. At some point, young humans stop receiving food from their mothers’ bodies and learn to consume plants and/or animals found in their environments in order to meet their nutritional needs. Within most other species of mammals, this transition happens at roughly the same age and to roughly the same range of foodstuffs for all individuals (Dettwyler 1999). Humans, however, as a uniquely global species with the powerful overlay of culture, exhibit a wide range of behaviors in this arena, with a wide variety of expressed reasons for their choices (Dettwyler & Fishman 1992, Dutta et al. 2006, Notzon 1984, Synott et al. 2007, Van Esterik 2002). Although there are certainly biological constraints on what can be fed successfully to a human infant, and a substantial body of scientific research showing that some choices promote better heal th outcomes than others (Allen et al. 1992, American Academy of Pediatrics 2009, Greer et al. 2008, Ip et al. 2007, Marlin et al. 1980, Ãâ€"hlund 2008, Olsson et al. 2008), there is still a great deal of latitude in the exact content, timing, and introduction sequence of non-milk baby foods. Into this gap, each human culture pours a raft of beliefs, values, norms, and social practices. This paper attempts to summarize, compare, and contrast the dominant infant feeding practices in three modern cultures: the United States of America, Mexico, and Sweden. These three countries and the cultures they house were selected for a variety of reasons. The United States was chosen because the author is a U. S. American with direct experience of its infant feeding an... ... Organization. Complementary Feeding: Report of the Global Consultation, and Summary of Guiding Principles for Complementary Feeding of the Breastfed Child. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 2002. World Health Organization. Global Strategy for Infant and Young Child Feeding. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 2003. World Health Organization. Guiding Principles for Feeding Non-breastfed Children 6-24 Months of Age. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO Press, 2005. World Health Organization. International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 1981. Wutich, Amber and C. McCarty. â€Å"Social Networks and Infant Feeding in Oaxaca, Mexico.† Maternal and Child Nutrition 4.2 (2008): 121-35. Yaron, Ruth. Super Baby Food. 2nd ed. Peckville, PA: F. J. Roberts Publishing, 1998.

Philosophy of Space and Time Essay

At the end of the nineteenth century, physicists were looking back at an era of progress unrivaled in known history. Classical, or Newtonian, physics explained the motion of objects in space and on earth, Kepler’s laws accurately predicted planetary motion, and Maxwell’s electromagnetic unified electricity and magnetism theory and predicted, correctly, that electromagnetic waves behaved exactly like light; paving the way for the recognition that light itself was an electromagnetic wave. It appeared that the world was explained. It was not to be. Two revolutionary theories were introduced that changed forever the way in which scientists and lay people alike view the universe. These were the Theory of Relativity and Quantum Physics (Giancoli 730) . Physicists at the turn of the century assumed that any wave must travel through some medium. This assumption required there to be some transparent substance in space that would allow light to propagate through it, much like a ripple on the water. They knew that this could not be air, since light traveled from stars to the earth through the emptiness of space. Another medium had to be responsible. This medium was named the Ether and it was thought to exist in all space. They understood that the ether had a zero density, since it was very difficult to detect (Giancoli 731). Two physicists in the 1880’s, Michelson and Morley, designed a clever experiment that they thought would determine the speed of the Earth in orbit around the sun. They anticipated being able to measure the speed of light in different orientations. They anticipated that the speed would vary with the orientation of the light wave to the ether. What they discovered was that the speed was constant. They believed there experiment was a failure. What their experiment showed, although they did not accept it, was that the ether did not exist. In 1905 Albert Einstein proposed a theory that reconciled this and other issues. This theory would change how scientists and lay people viewed space, time, mass, and energy (Giancoli 730). Einstein’s equation relating mass and energy, E = MC2, is easily recognizable. It brings together matter and energy as different forms of the same substance. This would imply that mass could be converted directly to energy, and vice versa. This radical departure from classical physics had several implications, both for scientists and for our culture. For scientists, the theory of relativity established the ultimate speed limit. The speed of light in a vacuum, c, is as fast as anything can go (Giancoli 748). Culturally, the discovery of relativity and quantum physics made possible such things as nuclear power, nuclear weapons, and medical imagery such as MRI Scans, CAT Scans, and PET scans. The advent of nuclear weapons changed our society. Nuclear attacks were a common theme in Hollywood films. Citizens built there own bomb shelters, argued the pros and cons of the nuclear power industry, and have enjoyed the advances in medicine. Indeed, our society now takes for granted these advances, and assumes that there will be a continued rapid advance as our knowledge base improves. Cosmology, or the study of the universe, has benefited from the theory of relativity. Many phenomenons, such as black holes, are only describable in terms of relativity and quantum physics. The advent of space telescopes, radio telescopes, and optical telescopes that detect emissions outside of the visible spectrum have shown the world the images of a universe unlike the one that was believed to exist just a hundred years ago (Giancoli 914-942). The search for extra-terrestrial life was instigated with the federal governments backing. The private citizens embraced this search, of 3 so much so that when the government quit funding SETI, individual citizens continued to support it. The discovery of relativity, quantum physics, and the new nature of cosmology has changed not only the scientific community but society as a whole. SETI, CAT scans, an Einstein’s name are household terms. The changes in perception of the world around us really cannot be overstated.