What's Up with the Weather by Jon Palfreman Essay

What's Up with the Weather by Jon Palfreman - Essay Example Wigly of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and conservative scientists and industrialists including James Tefril and Fred Singer of George Mason University and Fred Palmer of the Western Fuels Association. The subject : The burning of fossil fuels increases atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, exacerbating the "greenhouse effect." According to Fred Palmer from Western Fuels, "There is no basis to say that more carbon dioxide in the air is going to lead to a catastrophic global warming." But Marty Hobert of New York University states that "If man is going to have a future on this planet, it is absolutely inevitable we must find another source of energy." Tom Wigly of the National Center for Atmospheric Research believes that the time for mankind is near an end, that due to the doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the average world temperature will soon rise five degrees Celsius, eight degrees Fahrenheit. Fred Singer and Jamjes Tefril of George Mason University find the data ambiguous. "You're dealing with something that's very complicated," says Teferil. "You're dealing with something where there's legitimate uncertainty in the science." In 1997 Charles Keeling published forty years of observations which showed a rise in carbon dioxide levels from 330 to 370 parts per million, directly attributable to the use of fossil fuels by industry.

Williams Presents Essay Example for Free

Williams Presents Essay Eddie and Mickey were born from the same mother Mrs. Johnston, but they have extremely different lives. They were identical twins; they look exactly the same. But Mrs. Lyons separated them and made them have a different life. From then on, one of them, Mickey stayed with Mrs. Johnston lives in a big, poor family and the other one who was taken by Mrs. Lyons became very rich and got everything. They have been in a different world because of many factors surrounding them to rich or poor from the moment they have been born. I think the most influential factors are the family they have got and the family classes different. The different kind and level of education they have got did also influence them much. Also, the religion of the family is one of the factors that affect the life of the child as well. Different thing has different amount of influence to Mickey and Eddies life. I am going to discuss the factors one by one. The social context is messy at the time between late 70s and early 80s that the play was set. It is called recession. Margaret Thatcher is the Prime Minister; she encouraged people to make lots of money. As a result, the rich people in middle or upper class can earn much money but the poor people in working class lost their jobs. Life is very hard for working class, as they get poorer without a job. Mickeys family is suffered from this social climate. His family is poor. Unlike Eddie, his family is in middle class, he is rich. They have a great contrast in their life because the classes are different. Marilyn Monroe is the social icon of the day at that time. She is very glamorous, rich and she represents a life of fantasy. Everyone wants to be her. We know that from the book on p. 14, Act 1, Scene 1, it said He told me I was sexier than Marilyn Monroe, which is about Mr. Johnston said her wife was sexier, lovelier than Marilyn Monroe. It shows the value of that time. But that is what totally different from Mickey. Mickey is poor; he dressed scruffy. He lives in council house and his family is working class. He does not have money to buy everything he wanted. But Eddie, he is rich, he has got new clothes, and he looks smart. He lives in private house and his family is middle class. They are exactly the same, but the way of living is really different with one of them is living in a rich environment and another lives in a poor world. This is how the classes different influence their life. The size and people in their family have also influenced them. Mickey has a big family with 7 brothers and sisters. The speech of the mother in p. 14, Act 1, Scene 1, told us about that. She said: Seven hungry mouths to feed and one more nearly due. Mickey is the youngest in the family; he has to fight for food and everything with the elder brothers and sisters. Therefore, he needs to grow up fast and look tough to protect himself in case of beaten up by others. He also wants to his elder brother Sammy because he wants to get older so he can do everything he loves. We can see how much he wants to be Sammy in the book on p. 30, Act 2, Scene 1, he has repeated the sentences I wish I was our Sammy. - for five times. He does everything Sammy did; however, Sammy was not a good example for Mickey to learn. So Mickey becomes a joker and streetwise since he has got influenced by his brother Sammy. The family of Eddie, we know that he is the only child in his rich family and they are in middle class. He lives with his mum only most of his life. We dont know much about Eddies father because the book does not mention about him much. Mrs., Lyons, Eddies mother, loves her son very much. She gives him a good shelter, gives him everything he wanted. This makes very weak and soft and he will not know the hardship of the working class since life is easy for him. Time ran through quick by dramatic devices in the book. We can see how much difference between Mickey and Eddie over a long period. At first, when they are born, they are not much different from each other in either class or education. But when they are at the age of 17, Mickey is dropped out from school and on the other side Eddie was going to University. Then, when they both go to work, Mickey loses his job and Eddie is the boss of a factory. The education level made them have such a big difference. Mickey is poor educated as he left school when he was 17. He was study in government school. Normally, there is nothing bad to study in government school. But compare to Eddie, Eddie was study in private school, he was well educated. He could use a dictionary at the age of seven while Mickey do not even know what a dictionary is. We knew that from the conversation between Mickey and Eddie. Eddie said, I shall look it up in a dictionary. from p. 33, Act 2, Scene 2. From the speech of the narrator at p. 56, Act 4, Scene 1, we know Mickey and Eddie are getting older as they are 18. This is the job of narrator to take us through time and speed things up. Eddies goes into a University straight after he left his college but at that time Mickey was already dropped out from the school and working in a factory. Then, Eddie got a job, which is the boss of the factory, straight after he finished his studying. By that time Eddie becomes really powerful and rich but the other one, Mickey, is just a worker in a factory! They are identical twins but we can see how education makes them go into a different life. Superstition is one of the influences. Mrs. Johnston is very superstitious as we can see from the several events from the book. On p. 18, Act 1, Scene 3, Mrs. Lyons put a pair of new shoes on the table then Mrs. Johnston saw it and tell her never do this. This is a superstition thinking that something had will happen to you, which you will never notice. This shows that Mrs. Johnston is superstitious. I believe that she believes in religion. And this makes Mickey kind of superstitious as well. He believes what blood brother is. On the other side, I dont think Mrs. Lyons has any religion at all. She does not respect Mrs. Johnston and always use the weakness of Mrs. Johnston, that she is superstitious, to coerce her into doing something. At first Eddie does not believe any superstition things but Mickey influences him. He admires Mickey and everything Mickey does. He likes Mickey and wants Mickey likes him as well. On p. 32, Act2 2, Scene 2, we know Eddie gives sweets to Mickey. This reflected he is eager to please. Eddie used to dont know much about colloquial until Mickey told him. He thought everything Mickey said was smashing. And he believes that what Mrs. Johnston told her on p. 35, Act 2, Scene 2, about bogeyman. This shows that he is nai ve and innocent. In conclusion, I can divide the influences on the lives of Mickey and Eddie in four main sections. The differences between Mickey and Eddie in the family, the social class they are, the education they have and the religion of the family. They are identical twins but they have got a very different life, I think it is because these things that I have mentioned before influenced them.

Unstructured Free Time for School Age Children

Unstructured Free Time for School Age Children How Important is Unstructured Free Time for School Age Children? It has been said that children do their best learning when they do not believe they are doing so. We most often see this trend with kindergarteners, of whom find themselves playing games to learn to count, and singing songs to learn their ABCs. While the classroom has been an efficient location for the learning of academics, the playgrounds have been spheres of critical social skill development. These periods of unstructured free time, also known as recess, are essential for the childs development. The skills they learn during these periods of constant personalized play and imagination provide benefits that extend far beyond sharing and friendship making. There isnt one single reason as to why recess has been eliminated from many schools by their local school boards; there are a combination of factors of which have catalysed this motion. The most influential being a concern for safety and adequate supervision during the childrens recess periods. Some parents and administrators have felt that letting kids roam free for even 20 minutes during the school day is a safety hazard for the child. They fear that the child could get lost, or injure themselves from the unstructured and guiding free environment. This is the reason why many schools have banned dangerous games and activities, which further constricts what the child can and cannot do. Additionally parents also express concerns for the number of staff, meaning teachers or aids, available to supervise their children. Every parent wants their child to be the center of attention, and many carry with them the fear of their child being forgotten or ignored if something were to happen. Mor e often than not the issue rises to a greater level in the schools which lack an excess of funding to be able to hire extra aids in order to fill the teacher to student ratio requirement; most frequently the urban schools which lack much of the property taxes that fund rural schools. Additionally the past few decades have seen a larger push for academic success within our schools. States have pushed for schools to educate children where it matters, forcing the children to sit still and be quiet (Adams, Caralee). We can link this trend to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. It was created with the aims to even the playing field for disadvantaged students, but it instead lead to many controversial reactions and effects. Schools were required to test the students annually, and were required to show progress and success both as a whole district and on the individual student level. Those who failed to meet the acts requirements were penalized; meaning the school could be shut down or t he leadership team within the school could be changed entirely. (Lee, Andrew) The constant pressure to succeed in the classroom lead many schools to restrict recess for the children, and increase the amount of classroom focused time. It is unfortunate to see that when recess is concerned, the hazards outweigh the countless advantages which can be brought unto the childs mind and body. On the forefront of a childs development we most often find their social and emotional skills at an immediate influence. School is a large jump for many students, and their periods of recess activity have been found to be even more influential than their time in their classrooms. Socially, the free time provided during recess can facilitate the cultivation of new relationships by the children with their classmates. These relationships lead to the development of valuable communication skills and coping mechanisms. Take for example a group of children trying to organize a kickball game. First they must decide between themselves which people will be the captains, hence the development of their negotiation skills. Then they must choose which children will be on each team; creating the foundation of their cooperation skills, and problem solving abilities. Taking turns between kickers and outfielders is a prime example of sharing, as well as perseverance when someone gets tagged out and se lf control when someone gets upset about a decision. It has been seen that these skills, which can be perfected over the duration of the childs schooling, last for years past their graduation into higher education levels as well as the outside world. Learning to cope with problems and communicate when an issue arises are two social skills which can be continuously put into action throughout ones lifetime. Recess is a period of time wherein a child is given the freedom to choose; and even when the child doesnt participate in large group games they are still able to develop emotionally and socially. They can hopscotch and hula hoop; forming smaller and closer friendships with their counterparts. They have the ability to watch the kickball game; all due to the fact that recess gives the child the ability to chose to be themselves freely unlike in a classroom where the teacher makes most of the decisions. (Murray, Robert et.al) It is not to say that social and emotional skill arent deve loped in the classroom; we see children learn to understand authority through the teacher as well as when and where play is appropriate. Instead it can be said that the skills learned through free play create the foundation upon all other skills can be based. Where some have argued that recess is a waste of crucial school time, others have been able to recognize the cognitive and academic benefits unstructured free time provides for children. Through their own imaginative actions and experiences, children construct their own individual understanding mechanisms. The periods of recess create what is referred to as optimal processing; meaning a period of unstructured interruption after structured cognitive work. In order to effectively learn, the children need recess to subconsciously process all that has gone into their brains during the preceding classroom time. While they freely play, the childs brain files all of their newly acquired knowledge into new files and sections of their brain for future use. It has also been observed that recess serves as a means for children to become more attentive. When they burn off excess energy and are able to let their imaginations run free, returning into their classroom settings allows them to produce more attentive and productive work (Murray, Robert et.al). Not only is their work more productive, but their brains are then rewired to be better. The complex environment on the playground leads to the complex rewiring of the childs prefrontal cortex. This is alternately known as the executive control center; where emotional, planning, and problem solving skills develop. Complex situations become easier to navigate for the child, as circuits construct themselves through the free play recess allows them to have. If recess is used in the manner by which it was designated, then we could see new generations better prepared for life, love, and higher education (Hamilton, Jon). Children must learn to be children, and all else can fall behind this simple fact. Just as it is essential for a child to go to school, it is also vital for them to learn how to use their imaginations. We can not as a society force children into all work and no play environments; it would be hypocritical seeing as our previous generations have always had recess and some had even had it twice a school day (Adams, Caralee). As it has been said, all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. Recess provides the essential periods of play for the childs development into a creative and productive adult. We must remember as a society that we are raising our future generations, not crafting mindless robots always focused on work. Our ancestors didnt create new inventions with rigid minds. They were innovative and creative to forge a new path forward for their futures, and our today. Thus, it is imperative that instead of following societys trend of fear and worry, we weight recesss benefits mor e heavily. It isnt about play; but about childhood and the betterment of our futures. Works Cited Adams, Caralee. Recess Makes Kids Smarter. Instructor 120.5 (2011): 55-59. ERIC. Web. 23  Dec. 2016. Hamilton, Jon. Scientists Say Childs Play Helps Build A Better Brain. NPR. NPR, 6 Aug.  2014. Web. 22 Dec. 2016. . Lee, Andrew M.I. No Child Left Behind (NCLB): What You Need to Know. Understood.org.  Understood, n.d. Web. 02 Jan. 2017. Murray, Robert, MD, and Catherine Ramstetter Catherine Ramstetter, PhD, et al. The Crucial  Role of Recess in School. The Crucial Role of Recess in School | From the American Academy of Pediatrics | Pediatrics. American Academy of Pediatrics, Jan. 2013. Web. 22 Dec. 2016.

Cindy Sherman Essay -- essays research papers

Artist: Cindy Sherman Born: 1954 Glen Ridge, NJ and raised in suburban Long Island School: Earned a BA Degree in 1976, Buffalo State University of N.Y., where she initially   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   studied painting. She failed the requisite introductory photography course because   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   of her difficulties with the technological aspects of making a print. She credits her next   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   photography teacher with introducing her to conceptual art, which she says had a   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   liberating effect on her.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Graduated in 1977 and moved to N.Y. Exhibit: First survey exhibition of her work, the Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam 1982   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   followed by a retrospective at the Whitney Museum of American Art, N.Y. 1987   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The complete series (Film Stills) was first exhibited at the Hirshhorn Museum in   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Washington D.C., 1995   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Lives and works in N.Y. Film Stills: Series of black and white photographs created from 1977 to 1980, series of 69,   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   includes 7 color works ranging in date from 1980 to 1992   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Many taken in Sherman's apartment, she plays every role herself, although they are   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   not self-portraits. She does not reveal herself, but shows the many masks of   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   f...

Is Democracy good for women? Essay

Democracy without women is no democracy! (Declaration †¦ of Independent Women’s Democratic Initiative 1991:127) Women have tried to change the contours of a male-defined concept of democracy and assert the struggles for democracy which have been present within women’s movements as integral to a democratic body politic. (Rowbotham 1986: 106-107) Democracy is not something which, as a matter of ill-fated fact, has failed to deliver on its promises to women. It exemplifies ideals which guarantee that it will never deliver unless it gets on upon wide critical examination of its own philosophical assumptions. In brief, the charge made against democracy is that, for women, it was never more than an article of faith, and while two hundred years of democratization have failed (and are still failing) to bring equality for women, even faith is giving out. The uncharitable might interpret these remarks as nothing more than proof of feminist paranoia and of women’s general incapability to distinguish when they are well off. It is therefore significant to stress that the charge is not simply that democratic states are, as a matter of fact, ones in which women are deprived (though they are), but rather that democratic theory is, as a matter of principle, devoted to ideals which guarantee that that will remain so. As a faith, democracy was always a false faith, and its prophets (including nearly all the main political philosophers of the past two hundred years) are now exposed as false prophets. These are staid, depressing, and even dangerous charges. The more so if we have no preferred substitute to democracy, and no revised interpretation of its central ideals. The tasks for modern feminism are therefore twofold: first, to justify the claim that traditional democratic theory leads to undemocratic practice; secondly, to recognize the ways in which that theory might be reinterpreted so as to come closer to democratic ideals. The previous is feminism’s critique of the faith; the latter is feminism’s revision of the faith. Feminist theory and practice occupies a revealing position in debates concerning the relationship between social movements and democracy. As both a social movement and an academic body of thinking. It also offers a distinguishing, if marginalized, theoretical contribution. Though feminists are not the only movement contributors to have been both objects of and subjects in academic debates, they are debatably unique in emphasizing issues of democratic barring and inclusion. This emphasis stems from the chronological experience of women’s marginalization in the polity, their subordination within fundamental movements, and the complexities that feminists have faced in their attempt to create an independent, comprehensive movement of women. From these experiences, two discrete trails of analysis have emerged. The first, feminist democratic theory focuses on the integration of women in the polity. The second, emerging from debates concerning feminist organizing, centers on the democratization of relationships within the movement itself. Both are entrenched in a critique of the masculinity limits of liberal, republican, and leftist democratic theory and practices and are entrusting to constructing liberal, inclusive, and participatory alternatives. Since Mary Wollstonecraft, generations of women and some men wove painstaking arguments to demonstrate that excluding women from modern public and political life contradicts the liberal democratic promise of universal emancipation and equality. They identified the liberation of women with expanding civil and political rights to include women on the same terms as men, and with the entrance of women into the public life dominated by men on an equal basis with them. After two centuries of faith that the ideal of equality and fraternity included women have still not brought emancipation for women, contemporary feminists have begun to question the faith itself. (Young 1987: 93) Women’s marginalization within liberal democratic institutions was simply obvious at the end of the nineteenth century and the start of the twentieth. The vote was regularly extended, at least supposedly, to all adult men decades before it was to women. Full female suffrage was not won in Great Britain, for instance, until 1928. In France it was not granted until after the Second World War and in Switzerland not until the seventies. Early feminists felt that the elimination of women from the vote and other rights and privileges liberals accorded to â€Å"mankind† was conflicting and ignorant, a hangover of pre-Enlightenment prejudice and tradition that needed only to be brought to public attention to be remedied. However, it â€Å"turned out to be the merest tip of the iceberg: a daunting hint at deeper structures that stay women politically unequal† (Phillips 1993: 103). This is not to say that women do not use their vote as often or as autonomously as men. This has been the conclusion of some non-feminist studies of female voting behavior, which have argued that women are apolitical and ready to delegate decision making to the male head of family. Consequent feminist studies have concluded that gender disparities in voting behavior are extremely context specific, stratified by social and geographic location, and expected to diminish as women gain access to education and formal employment (Randall 1987: 50-53; Conway et al. 1997: 77-80; Baxter and Lansing 1983: 17-39). though, once we move beyond the vote, the participation of women of all backgrounds in those institutions inner to the functioning of liberal democracies, from parties to lobbying groups, remains considerably less than that of comparable men, though the proportion still varies eventually and space (Randall 1987: 53-58; Conway et al. 1997: 80-128). At the utmost levels of government, the numbers of women shrink radically, with little difference between democratic and non-democratic regimes. A sweeping experiential survey of both reveals: A bleak picture of women’s contribution as national leaders, cabinet ministers, members of national legislatures and sittings in the high civil service. At the end of 1990, only 6 of the 159 countries represented in the United Nations had women as chief executives. In almost 100 countries men held all the senior and deputy ministerial positions in 1987-89. Worldwide, only 10 percent of national lawmaking seats were held by women in 1987. (Chowdhury et al. 1994:15) There are disparities in the degree of women’s participation, even at this level. Most notably, Nordic countries have long outpaced other liberal democracies in the percentage of women in their legislatures as of facilitating welfare reforms, an democratic culture, and the overture of political quotas. For instance, women made up 37. 5 percent of the legislature in Norway in 1994 (Nelson and Chowdhury 1994: 775) and 47. 4 percent of the cabinet in 1991 (Bowker-Sauer 1991: 277). Jane Jaquette has argued that there were obvious increases in indicators of women’s demonstration in many regions during the 1990s. Yet the figures she cites underline the devastating reality of continuing female marginalization: â€Å"In the United States, women now make up 11. 2 per cent of Congress†; more than double the figure of 1987, certainly, but the fact remains that men still constitute 88. 8 percent (1997: 26-27). To take another example, women gained around 20 percent of the seats in the British Parliament in the 1997 elections. This was a vivid rise, but one leaving around 80 percent of representatives male. What is more, these advances remain brittle. In the British case, they were the consequence of the victorious Labour Party having ensured that a percentage of its candidate shortlists were composed of women, a move that consequently was ruled illegal. Finally, any advances have been compensated by the sharp drop in female levels of contribution during the East Central European transitions to liberal democracy. The significant point to recognize is that Nordic uniqueness and recent incremental advances in some countries do not basically alter the stark and relatively static discrepancy between male and female levels of contribution in liberal democratic institutions wide-reaching. Women have also not been incorporated as equals into substitute visions of democracy. The previously Marxist-Leninist regimes in East Central Europe made an overt effort to establish a considerable women’s presence within their policy-making institutions, attaining an average proportion of between 25 and 35 percent. Though, this was again much lower than women’s presence in the general population and it was attainned through quotas. Though they are not essentially undemocratic in themselves, quotas meshed with male-dominated, authoritarian rule to inflict a female presence lacking in legitimacy, autonomy, and real power. Additionally, efforts to democratize relations of production continued circumscribed by the top-down imposition of decisions by the party and by ongoing gender hierarchies within the party, workplace, and home. Women were integrated in large numbers into the workers but in lower paid, lower status work. They remained burdened with domestic responsibilities, and their capability for autonomy at work and in the home was thus not efficiently increased (Jaquette 1997: 27; Janova and Sineau 1992: 119-123). Anti-colonial radical movements that arose elsewhere throughout the twentieth century, from Vietnam to Nicaragua, were apparently more popular-democratic in nature and often succeeded in mobilizing large numbers of women in a wide diversity of roles. Though, they have also shown a propensity to relapse to more traditional divisions of labor on attaining state power, excluding women from positions of authority. The record is not much better for fundamental movements that are not primarily tilting toward gaining state power. The New Left, for instance, mobilized many women and was distinguished by an egalitarian, participatory democratic ethic, but it generated mainly male spokespeople and privileged masculinist modes of behavior. It also failed to challenge the sexual objectification of women and channeled them into community-oriented activism and supportive, administrative tasks (Evans 1979: 108-155, 177-179). Similar stories of women’s subordination and the trivialization of their concerns have emerged from more recent fundamental nonstatist movements’ organizations, from the Israeli peace group â€Å"The 21st Year† (Rapoport and Sasson-Levy 1997: 8) to the ecological activists â€Å"Earth First! † (Sturgeon 1997: 49-57). A major approaching of early second-wave feminist thought was the classification of gender itself as a site and source of hierarchical power, functioning to benefit masculine traits, roles, and values over feminine comparables. This brought with it an prominence on the pervasiveness of power and a focus on its operations at the micro level of daily interactions, or what Nira Yuval-Davis calls â€Å"primary social relations† (1997a: 13). This contrasted with the focus of most modernist approaches on power in â€Å"more distant secondary social relations† (Yuval-Davis 1997a: 13), namely the state and/or economy. Early second-wave feminists explicated the causes and operations of gendered power under the rubric of patriarchy. The factual meaning of patriarchy as rule of the father, â€Å"the principle of the authority of senior males over juniors, male as well as female† (Uberoi 1995: 196), was stretched in very diverse directions. It was conceptualized by â€Å"radical† feminists as the primary and most essential form of power, exercised by all men over all women all through the world and originating in either male biological capacities and psychological disaffection or women’s susceptibility to physical attack and pregnancy. Patriarchy in this sense was understood to be retained through male aggression, the philosophy of heterosexuality, and the institutionalization of both in marriage and the family. on the contrary, feminists working within Marxist and socialist theoretical traditions concerted on the operations of patriarchy in capitalist modernity. Some argued that capitalism was essentially patriarchal, with varying stress given to the gendered division of labor, the reproductive role of women, or the purpose of the household within the economy. Others insisted that patriarchy and capitalism were distinct if inter-related systems of power, though they disagreed on the specific nature of that interrelationship. All established that neither patriarchy nor capitalism must be systematically or politically privileged, both being equally major forms of power. In addition, socialist feminists agreed that patriarchy was a property of structures that located both women and men in patterned roles within society. Most socialist and radical feminists held to the view that it was both potential and essential to abolish patriarchal and capitalist power relations and thus form a power-free world. A third strand in second-wave feminist thinking concerning gender and power drawing a division between power over as authority and control and power to as creative capacity, exercised in involvement with others rather than at their expense. The latter form of power also featured as an significant strand in republican thinking. Feminists have argued that it reflects especially feminine, relational modes of being and acting, of the kind typically exercised in close realms of life and in local communities. Such arguments have usually not been intended as a refusal of theories of patriarchal power over but do adapt them by insisting that women’s experiences are not completely negative and that their capacity for agency must be recognized alongside the constraints imposed upon it. This entails that patriarchal power has not completely prevented women from making an involvement to democracy although it has ensured that their involvement has not been fully valued. Second-wave feminist criticisms of the limited extent of most formulations of democracy focus predominantly on the dissimilarity between public and private life. Many feminists have accepted the force of Marx’s analysis of the liberal divide between public life and the private world of civil society. though, they have added that both liberalism and Marxism, and other approaches to democracy, rely on and reify a diverse public/private peculiarity, that between the domestic realm and the rest of social life (Pateman 1989: 118-140). The gendered nature of the domestic globe was openly recognized and defended in early moderate and republican work, and criticized in some Marxist and anarchist tracts, but it has since been included within the nebulous mass of civil society. Women’s continued involvement with the domestic, and the positioning of the domestic as especially private and outside of the public, has served to accept the relations of inequality between the genders that structure all dominions of life and to ensure that most women remain politically indiscernible. Whereas some second-wave feminists have formed historical and transcultural theories of this trend, others have stressed that it’s precise formulation and the consequences for women have diverse over time and place. Carole Pateman’s significant analysis of the recasting of this relationship in modernity (1989) describes a evolution from a monumental public patriarchal order, in which paternal control of the household was subordinated to a masculine hierarchy descending downwards from God and the King, to a system of private patriarchy whereby male heads of households were reconstituted as free and equal agents in the public globe through the continuation of hierarchical gender relations in the home. This meant that the state and the allegedly private civil sphere were constructed as fraternal associations of especially masculine equals. This argument is resistant by feminist critiques of the masculinist and Eurocentric character of public modes of behavior and language, such as balanced speech and impartial judgment. Feminists have argued that the supremacy of these modes is predicated on the relegation to the private sphere of bodily, affective, and illogical ways of being and those people, including women, who are considered to mark those (Young 1987). Perhaps most feminist investigations of the public/private divide in modernity, mainly those influenced by Marxism, have focused on the gendered division of labor under capitalism: the methodical allocation of accountability for â€Å"public,† paid work to men and â€Å"private,† unpaid labor to women. This is not an argument that women have been completely absent from the public economy. Total imprisonment to the home must be understood as a bourgeois ambition rather than a reality for most women. It was legitimately rejected in apparently socialist regimes and is increasingly being redundant by women of all classes in most locations. Though, women still take on the irresistible responsibility for family and domestic chores and this, joint with associated ideologies of domesticity, romance, and sexuality, channels them into marginalized, subordinated, and frequently sexualized roles in the formal economy. Precisely where the causal means in this process has been situated by feminists has depended on their precise analysis of the way patriarchy works and its relationship with capitalism. There has, conversely, been general agreement on the effects. In the West, women are intense in public welfare provision and service sectors, clerical and non-unionized manufacturing occupations, and part-time and lower paid rungs of the workforce. Women in emergent economies carry out the bulk of textile and electronics production, typically in non-unionized conditions that are often appalling. Those on the fringes of the world economy eke out a living from marginal agriculture, the informal economy, and sexual and domestic work. The dual burden of insecure and low-paid work in the formal economy and domestic chores in the private sphere operates as what feminist political scientists call a â€Å"situational constraint,† restrictive the participation of women, particularly those from certain classes, races, and locations, in public, political activities (Randall 1987: 127-129). All the above arguments focus on the gendered segregations arising from the restraints of politics to the public sphere. Feminist analysis also entails that the gendered hierarchies of the private sphere require to be recognized as political. This was the interpretation behind one of the most renowned second-wave slogans, â€Å"the personal is political. † The slogan insisted that in fact personal issues typically faced by isolated individuals behind closed doors such as whether to have sex, whether to have children, or how to systematize caring roles and responsibilities were analytically shaped by structures and relations of power that disadvantaged women relative to men. These power relations also limited women’s entree to partaking in those areas of life more characteristically understood as political and they requisite collective contestation (Randall 1987: 12-13). Effectively, this necessitated a refusal of restricted notions of politics as a characteristic activity separated out from social life, or as limited to a explicit realm or social struggle. Politics was extended to encompass the maintenance or contestation of coercive power relations wherever they were marked. This is a fundamentally agonistic formulation of politics as essentially confliction. It brought with it a liberal notion of democratic politics as the contestation of coercive power relations, and the disparities and marginalization they produce, in even the most intimate areas of life. It could be argued that this too is an agonistic formulation, one that anticipates the postmodern reconfiguration of democracy as a continuing process of conflict and contestation rather than an attainable end state. However, there is another element to the expansive feminist formulation of democracy, and that is the ambition to construct more cooperative, inclusive, and participatory relationships between individual women and the community. Certainly, second-wave feminists have had greatly different visions of possible â€Å"utopias† to which they desired and they have advocated very diverse routes to get there. Moreover, their arguments have hardly ever been articulated using the language of democracy per se. But the general point remains that much of untimely second-wave feminism sought to ease the self-determination and creative flowering of individual women and the development of more democratic and authentically consensual relationships between women and/or between women and men. This reverberates strongly with revolutionary arguments about democracy. One cause for the second-wave emphasis on participatory modes of democracy was a distress with women’s political agency and its chronological erasure. â€Å"Male stream† approaches to democracy were condemned for universalizing masculinist ideas concerning who can act in democracy and how they do and must act, in ways that function to eliminate women or marginalize their activities. One center of criticism was the liberal notion of the political subject as an asocial individual affianced in the rational pursuit of pregiven ends. Drawing on histories of the social and cultural collision of gender roles, psychoanalytic theories of gender establishment, and the experience of giving birth and living in families, feminists have argued that women hardly ever have the opportunity or the desire to live as entirely separate and discrete persons to the degree presumed by liberal ontology. Men can do so simply if they distance themselves from feminine traits and roles, relying on women to assume the major accountability for domestic labor and emotional interrelationships in the domestic spheres. The more social conceptualization of citizenship put onward by republicans, whereby individual autonomy is achieved through public consideration, has been seen as little better as it shares with liberalism the insistence that all corporal differences and particularist emotional attachments should be transcended in the public sphere. In early liberal and republican formulations, the gendered allegations of this move were made explicit. The bodily disparities of women from men and their involvement with sexuality, childbirth, and childrearing earned them a subsidiary service role in the private (Jones 1990: 790-792). Also, second-wave feminists have noted that the chronological connection between nationality and military service, predominantly evident in republican formulations, has resistant women’s internment to the private by positioning them as vulnerable and in require of protection. The fact that women finally won formal inclusion as citizens (and, somewhat, as soldiers) has not, many feminists have argued, altered the fundamental masculinist model. Women’s participation is probable to remain partial and driven with disagreements. This is supported by the findings of feminist political scientists with consider to the situational constraints faced by women with childcare responsibilities and the socialization of young girls into domestic roles and inert traits, both of which bound women’s capacity to become political actors as conservatively understood (Randall 1987: 123-126). A final area of second-wave feminist criticism has drawn consideration to the limits of strategies for change in â€Å"male stream† democratic frameworks. This is not to contradict that many feminists have established conventional strategies. Reformism has been and remains advocated by those working within laissez-faire and social democratic frameworks, who insist that women have to grab the opportunity to lobby for incremental change by exercising their vote and organizing cooperatively as an interest group to put more direct pressure on states, parties, and legislatures. The state is seen here as an unbiased arbiter of contradictory interests those women have an equal chance to shape to their purposes if they muster collectively. Their capability to do so, welfare liberal and social democratic feminists add, can be eased through economic redistribution. Such an approach has long been condemned by other feminists for its lack of radicalism, its search for compromise, and its emphasis on the activities of comparatively educated and economically privileged women. A conservatively Marxist model of revolutionary change through seizure of the state has often been pursued by more left wing feminists, often from within existing leftist organizations. The argument here is that gendered relations of power will collapse with capitalism and the liberal state, and a state proscribed in the interests of the working classes will facilitate a more substantive democracy for both women and men to expand. This view has been condemned by those who snub to subordinate feminist demands to anti-capitalist struggle. As the experience of so-called socialist states established, such subordination is probable to continue after the revolution. Gendered inequalities, though they may be considerably reconfigured, are unlikely to be determinedly overturned. Reference: †¢ Baxter, Sandra, and Marjorie Lansing. 1983. Women and Politics: The Visible Majority. Rev. ed. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. †¢ Bowker-Sauer. 1991. Who’s Who of Women in World Politics. London: Bowker? Sauer. †¢ Chowdhury, Najma, and Barbara J. Nelson, with Kathryn A. Carver, Nancy J. Johnson, and Paula L. O’Loughlin. 1994. â€Å"Redefining Politics: Patterns of Women’s Political Engagement from a Global Perspective. † In Barbara J. Nelson and Najma Chowdhury, eds. Women and Politics Worldwide. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. †¢ Conway, M. Margaret, Gertrude A Steuernagel, and David W. Ahern. 1997. Women and Political Participation: Cultural Change in the Political Arena. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press. †¢ Declaration from the Founder Members’ Meeting of the Independent Women’s Democratic Initiative. 1991. â€Å"Democracy Without Women Is No Democracy! † Feminist Review 39: 127-132. †¢ Evans, Sara. 1979. Personal Politics: The Roots of Women’s Liberation in the Civil Rights Movement and the New Left. New York: Vintage Books. †¢ Janova, Mira, and Mariette Sineau. 1992. â€Å"Women’s Participation in Political Power in Europe: An Essay in East-West Comparison. † Women’s Studies International Forum 11/1: 115-128. †¢ Jaquette, Jane S. 1997. â€Å"Women in Power: From Tokenism to Critical Mass. † Foreign Policy 108: 23-37. †¢ Nelson, Barbara J. , and Najma Chowdhury, eds. 1994. Women and Politics Worldwide. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. †¢ Pateman, Carole. 1989. The Disorder of Woman: Democracy, Feminism and Political Theory. Cambridge: Polity Press. †¢ Phillips, Anne. 1993. Democracy and Difference. Cambridge: Polity Press. †¢ Randall, Vicky. 1987. Women and Politics: An International Perspective. 2d ed. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan. †¢ Rapoport, Tamar, and Orna Sasson-Levy. 1997. â€Å"Men’s Knowledge, Women’s Body: A Story of Two Protest Movements. † Paper presented at the First Regional Conference on Social Movements, 8-10 September, Tel Aviv, Israel. †¢ Rowbotham, Sheila. 1986. â€Å"Feminism and Democracy. † In David Held and Christopher Pollit, eds. New Forms of Democracy. London: SAGE in association with the Open University. †¢ Sturgeon, Noel. 1997. Ecofeminist Natures: Race, Gender, Feminist Theory and Political Action. London: Routledge. †¢ Uberoi, Patricia. 1995. â€Å"Problems with Patriarchy: Conceptual Issues in Anthropology and Feminism. † Sociological Bulletin 44/2: 195-221. †¢ Young, 1987. â€Å"Impartiality and the Civic Public: Some Implications of Feminist Critiques of Moral and Political Theory. † In Seyla Benhabib and Drucilla Cornell, eds. Feminism as Critique: Essays on the Politics of Gender in Late-Capitalist Societies. Cambridge: Polity Press. †¢ Yuval-Davis, Nira. 1997a. â€Å"Women, Citizenship and Difference. † Feminist Review 57: 4-27.

Comparing and contrasting two characters from The Handmaids Tale

Sexual slavery and feminism are two of the main themes in Atwood’s dystopian book The Handmaid’s Tale (1986), in which she portrays a society called Gilead in which women are deprived of their civil liberties. In Atwood’s dystopian society most women have become infertile and the few ones who can still bear children are turned into handmaids, i. e. sexual servants who are brainwashed for the mere purpose of breeding healthy children for the elite. This novel is an account of Offred’s musings and her fragmented perception of reality. It is Offred who introduces two antithetical characters: rebellious Moira and submissive Janine. Although these characters employ different strategies to either escape or accommodate respectively, they end up being subdued by Gilead’s regime, metaphorically losing control over their own body. I will outline both characters’ personalities, their subjugation to Gilead and the loss of connection with their own bodies. Moira is a rebellious lesbian who is admired by the Handmaids, but as the story unfolds, she subdues to Gilead. Moira’s boisterous behavior is displayed by her actions and speech, which is highly colloquial, as when she states, â€Å"I’m borrowing five bucks off you, okay? † (Atwood, THT, p. 32) and when she refers to the Red Center[1] as a â€Å"Loony Bin† (THT, p. 61). She constantly defies the Gilead system and even tries to escape twice succeeding on her second attempt and as a result of this Moira never becomes a proper handmaid. Even when Moira has disappeared from the scene, she makes a dramatic impact on the Handmaids, who admire her: â€Å"Moira was our fantasy (†¦) she was with us in secret, a giggle† (THT p. 17). But her power over Offred seems to cease when Moira appears in scene at Jezebel’s, a place in which improper Handmaids such as Moira are forced into prostitution: â€Å"I am shocked by them (the women in Jezebel’s) I recognize them as truant. The official creed denies them, denies their very existence, yet they are here † (THT p. 213). There, Moira lets herself be used by men once and again in order to accommodate to this new reality, even minimizing the gravity of the situation: â€Å"it’s not so bad, there’s lots of women around. Butch paradise, you might call it† (THT p. 28). Thus, her once rebellious identity fades as she loses control of her body. In this way, it can be deduced that even the most rebellious personality subdues to Gilead. Unlike Moira, Janine is seen as a straight-laced, submissive character who is constantly trying to accommodate to Gilead, but in the end, she gets subdued as well. Her submissive behaviour is clearly displayed when, at the Red Center, she blames herself for having been gang-raped in the pre-Gilead society, as a strategy for accommodation: â€Å"It was my fault, she says. It was my own fault. I led them on. I deserved the pain† (THT p. 62). Soon, the aunts consider Janine an â€Å"example† (THT p. 62) for the rest of the Handmaids. But whereas Moira is admired for her courage, Janine is depicted by the handmaids in a derogatory sense, calling her a â€Å"whiny bitch† (THT p. 98), and even â€Å"sucky† (THT p. 98). Their hatred for Janine grows when she becomes a spy for the Aunts: â€Å"We (the handmaids) avoided her when we could (†¦) She was a danger to us†. Similar to Moira, Janine ends up working for Gilead, although Janine does it legally. She is able to bear a child for her Commander’s wife, but soon after the birth the baby dies: â€Å"(The baby) was a shredded after all (†¦) My God, (†¦) to go through all that, for nothing. Worse than nothing† (THT p. 192). As a result, Janine becomes insane as she cannot tolerate the loss: â€Å"she’s (Janine) let go, totally now, she’s in free fall, she’s in withdrawal† (THT p. 252). But her insanity is also due to the loss of connection with her body she gets â€Å"legally† raped, which comes as a revival of her pre-Gilead’s traumatic experience. For her, losing the relationship with her body implies losing her mind as well. In conclusion, Janine had done everything to accommodate to this society: she pleased the Aunts, she became a spy, and she even bore a child; but she never accomplished her purpose of becoming accepted and, as compared to Moira, she is subjugated to Gilead, metaphorically losing both mind and body. As I have already stated, Moira and Janine present both differences and similarities. The boldest differences between them are their personalities and their strategies to either escape or accommodate to Gilead. But even these antithetical characters have a similar destiny: their subjugation to the society and the metaphorical loss of connection with their own bodies. The implication that arises from this comparison is that were a society like this be established, women would not only be morally affected, but they would also lose their own identity. Another line of research worth pursuing further is to study the effect that a society like this could have on today’s world.