toptermpaper.com

The highly controversial model of the ‘sick role’, developed by American functionalist Talcott Parsons (1902-79) is a proposed concept of sickness that focused on sociological properties rather than medical, and is one that indubitably concerned medical sociology. (Twaddle, 1977: p. 116). Parsons was specifically concerned with the social control of deviant behaviour, arguing that the sick role is learned through primary socialisation processes and that people could voluntarily decide to be sick, deviantly adopting the sick role to be excused from their responsibilities of social life. (White, K. 2002: p. 112). While Parsons’ perspective on medicine was more favourable than the Marxist, he viewed the social importance of the sick role as performing a social function beyond the treatment of disease, and observed how the medical profession acts to control deviance and provides an account of illness as a response to social strain. (White, K. 2002: p. 8). Although Parsons’ concept is one of the most influential in medical sociology it has considerable criticism and debate, accordingly with Parsons assuming recovery is always possible the model is limited with a conditional set of privileges that do not accommodate a range of conditions, including chronic or incurable diseases.

Parsons’ defined the ‘sick role’ as – a sick person who adopts certain patterns of behaviour in order to minimise the impact of their illness. (Giddens 2001: p. 159). Through his concept, Parsons describes the social expectations of how sick people are expected to act and how they are meant to be treated. (Germov, 2007: p. 48). He believed only the legitimately sick had the right to enter into the sick role, and in the case of illness there needed to be socially prescribed roles for both the sick and the medical profession. (Morgan, M. 1993: p.45). According to Parsons (1951: pp. 428-79) there are four key aspects to the sick role: the sick person is not responsible for their condition, they are exempt from their normal social obligations for the duration of their illness, they must try to recover from the illness and they must seek help and cooperate with a legitimate health practitioner. The sick role derives certain expectations that represent the norms appropriate to being sick, with its primary function to control the disruptive effect of illness in society by ensuring that those who do become ill are returned to a state of health as quickly as possible. (Morgan, M. 1993: p.47).

Through his alternative analysis of medicine, Parsons argued that even though modern societies have a capitalist economy they have non capitalist social structures, with the medical profession being one such structure. He observed medical practitioners performing non economic functions by caring for the community as a whole, treating individuals specifically for disease. This is in contrast to Marxists view that medicine in a capitalist society reflects the characteristics of capitalism as being profit oriented and blaming the victim for their condition. (White, K. 2002: p. 8). Medical practitioners are credited by their patients as having authority to enable them to enter into the sick role by diagnosing disease, prescribing medicine and granting absence from the workforce. According to Parsons, to prevent the formation of deviance in modern societies the sick person although not responsible for their condition, is expected to seek professional advice, have obligations placed upon them to cooperate in medical instruction, and to follow treatment in order to regain health.

Parsons sociology of health focused on the manifest functions of the sick role in contributing to the social stability and health of society. (Morgan, M. 1993: p.47). Parsons argued that sickness is a special form of deviant behaviour separate from other forms such as crime. He identified that sickness can threaten the stability of a healthy society, believing that the efficient functioning of the social system depends on the sick being managed and controlled. (Bilton, 2002: p. 359). In view of this, Parsons (1951) identified for the patient two rights – to be exempt from normal social roles and responsibility for their own state; and explained two obligations – to want to get well quickly and to consult expert medical opinion. Yet Parsons’ view of illness as deviance (Twaddle, 1977: p. 117) fails to address the lay person’s role in the process of their illness, as patient autonomy varies; children, for example are more likely to be passive recipients of medical help than adults. (Van Krieken, 2006: p. 359). A number of other weaknesses have been exposed in Parsons sick role model, accordingly, the model does not account for differences in gender, sexuality, other cultures, race or class, mental or chronic illnesses, alcoholism, the aged or even pregnancy.

American Professor Eliot Freidson (1923-2005) had a theory comparable with Parsons’ model, he reformulated the Parsonian framework and developed the Labelling approach, a theory that involves a distinction between two types of deviance – primary and secondary deviance. Although Freidson criticised the Parsonian model, he offered a viable alternative, believing deviant behaviour to be a socially created label with legitimacy the key to distinguishing between Parsons’ sick roles. Freidson identified three legitimacies of illness: Conditional legitimacy, deviants temporarily exempt from their normal obligations, gaining some privileges that enable them to return to a normal role; Unconditional legitimacy, where deviants are permanently exempt from their obligations and allowed additional privileges in view of illness that is believed to be incurable; And Illegitimacy, deviants to be exempt from some normal obligations, with the person not held responsible for their condition, and gaining few privileges. (Morgan, M. 1993: p.53) Friedson’s analysis overcomes some of the limits within Parsons’ approach to the sick role, acknowledging that reactions to illness and the expectations of the sick person may vary between different groups in society according to the nature of the condition. (Morgan, M. 1993: p.55)

Parsons notion of the sick role has been extremely influential, clearly revealing how the sick person is an integral part of a larger social context. Although his concept of the sick role has been highly criticised, and the existing research evidence offers little support for the formulation, it is important to realise that it was in many ways a brilliant example of sociological insight which offered a starting point for a number of the ongoing empirical inquiries of medical sociology. (Van Krieken, 2006: p. 359). Dimensions of the Parsonian sick role model are relative to the nature and severity of the illness, it is affected by the nature of the illness, social, cultural and personal factors (Seagull, 1976: p. 165). However further research is still required to unravel the exact nature of this relationship and to specify precisely the modifications necessary to allow this general conceptual model to be meaningfully applied to the study of specific mental and physical conditions, ranging from chronic illness, alcoholism and to pregnancy. (Seagull, 1976: p. 165). The increasing emphasis on lifestyle and health in our modern age means that individuals are seen as bearing ever greater responsibility for their own well-being, even if that means contradicting the first premise of the sick role – individuals are not to blame for their illness. (Giddens, 2009: p.405).

Over the past years the headlines of newspapers have read everything from ‘Neighbour says Nia ‘chucked’ on line’ (NZHerald: 2008) to just this month ”very violent’ brain injury killed baby’ (NZHerald: 2011). In New Zealand on average one child is killed every 5 weeks due to Child Abuse. This figure should not come as a surprise; as over the past decade stories of fatal child abuse cases have been frequently covered in the news (Child matters: 2011).

Norms are a ‘social fact’ (Durkheim: 1982). These are the words from the famous French sociologist Emile Durkheim. He went on to explain that we are born into a pre-existing order, with rules and norms that have already been premade and set. And that if we want to live in this society we are born into, we must learn to abide by these ‘pre-determined sanctions’ (Durkheim: 1982/1895, p56-57). These already set norms include those associated with the issue of child abuse. We don’t have to think twice when reading horrendous articles in the newspaper of children being put in clothes dryers and severely beaten. We already know that it is morally wrong. Although in different cultures around the world different types of ‘abuse’ may be seen as a form of, what they see as normal ‘punishment’. These ‘social facts’ still exist around us. They were there before we were born and will still remain weather we choose to agree or disagree with them; most of which have consequences if you do chose to ‘stray’ from them.

This brings us Sharyn Roach Anleu’s 5 key questions surrounding norms; 1) whose norms? , in the case of child abuse it is our society/country of New Zealand’s norms. The norm is that it is not right to abuse children, or anyone. It is seen as a bad thing and as a country I am sure that there will not be many people who would say that it is ok to abuse. 2) How do some norms become official or legal? Harming a child is wrong and when hearing about these inhumane acts of violence against children we may be urged to do something about it, but if we are being real with ourselves, on our own; without economic or political power it would be difficult to put forth and solidify our beliefs into laws. Although with this issue there are many people with power who share the beliefs of our society. Such as Green MP Sue Bradford’s; the anti smacking law was passed in 2007(NZ Herald: 2007). Since she had political power, with the support of the community the bill was passed. Three years have passed and a new law will be passed that will see those people who turn a blind eye to child abuse prosecuted (DominionPost: 2011). This will be a positive thing as many cases of child abuse drag on for months as the people involved; who could have very well saved the Childs life have been to afraid or not bothered to report the abuse happening. Why are some norms more important than others? Does visibility make a difference? And can there be deviance without breaking social norms?

As said in the book straying from these social norms can lead to deviance over a period of time. The example given is that of a soft drug user over time leads to hard drug use. This approach can be put into context with child abuse. Child abuse may be as obvious as bruises or as subtle as a parent neglecting their child. There can never be a good reason for child abuse to occur; but there definitely is a reason behind it .The straying could be the perpetrator; an adult – being a parent, relative or friend showing their anger, due to various causes (e.g. stress in the home, work etc) through minor outburst such as yelling at the child or accidentally slapping them over time letting it get out of control and making it a regular occurrence of more severe abuse.

Interactionist theory of deviance argues that deviant behaviour is learned. As is other behaviours. Just as deviance is socially constructed; Child abuse is considered as sociological fact as it is not an innate behavioral pattern for human beings to follow. It is mostly a learned behavior usually from interactions with the parents of the abusers. Sociology is the study of society, or to be more precise it is about group interactions within society. We are all part of groups such as school, cultural ethnic groups. One of the first groups that we interact with is with our families. This is where we learn much of what influences us as adults, and if abuse is what is learned as a child, it is most likely to be performed when the abused children grow up.The oxford dictionary of Sociology defines Child abuse as referring to:

The maltreatment or injury of a child by an adult or adults. Such abuse can be physical, emotional, sexual, or a combination of all three. It might be perpetrated by one person or by several, within a family or outside it, and in public or in private. (Oxford: 2011)

Over the years what may have been seen as an act of firm punishment is now; being discovered as a form of deviance. In the chapter Straying: Deviance in Being Sociological, Michael Lloyd makes it clear that norms are a key attribute when defining Deviance.

‘The deviant is one to whom that label has successfully been applied; deviant behavior is behavior that people so label’ (Becker, 1963, p9).Behaviors that are considered deviant are highly biased.Crime/deviance is defined by those in power. In context in the Kahui child abuse case where the father of the twins was wrongly accused for months over the killing of his twin babies. A stigma was formed which led people to think badly of him. And because of this label it seemed to the public that he was the abuser and that he had done it. Instead of him fighting for his right, because so many people were already against him due to this label, there was nothing he could do about it as a majority of people would not believe him. Until it was found that it was actually the baby’s mother who was the abuser then was this stigma lifted, and peoples view towards him changed. The damage would have still been there today and will take a while for him to socially construct himself again. Another form of social construction can be seen in Georges Canguilhem’s analysis of normality.

Ian Hackings looping effect links on to the labelling theory as stated in his example ‘person A does not want to be person H. ‘ if others think of a person as someone they are not(false accusation, stereotyping) That person will change their behaviours because they are aware of what others are saying about them. For example the deviant; the person doing the child abuse. Or the abuser that becomes out of the child that has been abused, may because of the stereotype of there being previous abuse in their household they may or may not want to live up to that labelling .But because of what others are saying they will get treated like the deviant whether they like it or not creating a looping effect. Harold Garfinkel’s documentary of identification method revealed that the jury he was studying the jurors came up with the outcome then filled in the reasons. These theories show that deviants are socially constructed through social interactions; the way people are treated influence how they act. And without deviance ‘there would be no social change’ (Lloyd: 2007)

The author’s main purpose to introduce the complexity of the relationship between straying and how over time can lead to deviance was supported by including the viewpoints, theories and ideas of different people. Lloyd did not make many assumptions apart from assuming that the reader knew the meaning of ‘straying’; saying that it ‘is a term used in everyday talk so we can do without a definition'(Lloyd,2007,p317-318). Through this text Michael Lloyd could be seen as being biased towards deviance being a ‘social fact’ in society. He addresses the five questions surrounding norms which Sharyn Roach Anleu summarised following Emile Durkheim’s theory of norms being a ‘social fact’. These questions prove that deviance is an area of sociology that is ‘full of debate and competing theories’ (Lloyd, 2007, p319). By including this and a commentator Colin Sumner’s claim that, ‘the field reached a dead -end by the late 1970’s’ Lloyd has saved himself from being completely biased by taking into account different viewpoints of the topic. The sociological theories; Becker’s labelling theory, Ian Hackings looping effect theory of human kind Harold Garfinkel’s identification of the ‘documentary method of interpretation and ideas from this chapter help to understand and explain what is happening in the very serious social issue of child abuse in New Zealand.

To understand gender analysis in a historic context, it will be important to start off by defining what gender is and gender analysis. Gender refers to the social construction of male and female identities. It is more than the biological make up of the two sexes. It deals with how the differences between men and women, whether real or imagined, are valued, used and relied upon to classify men and women and to assign them roles and expectations. The effect of this categorization is that the lives and experiences of men and women occur within complex sets of differing social and cultural expectations. Gender analysis therefore examines the differences in men’s and women’s lives and applies this understanding to policy development and service delivery (Zastrow & Kirst-Ashman 2009).

In history, the current understanding of gender as a category of historical analysis can be traced to the late twentieth -century feminist political mobilization that occurred in Europe and the United States which led to the development of the field of women’s history both as a product and practice. Many of the early women historians in many cases employed the category ‘women’ when talking about women’s roles, perceptions of women or myths about women as opposed to the analytical language of gender as we know it today (Parker & Aggleton 1998). Most of these embraced the concept of gender closely akin to Gayle Rubin’s classic early formulation that stated that in every society, there is a set of arrangements by which the biological human sex and procreation is shaped by human, social intervention which is actually gender (Shepard & Walker 2009). The work of the feminists was primarily to expose those gender systems and redress their injustices to women.

In this context therefore the work of the women’s historians was to discover and bring into the public domain such patterns in the past, to return women and their activities to the historical record and to bring out ways in which women in the past tried to resist sexual oppression in the societies within which they lived.

Despite the fact that distinction between sex and gender remained common in feminist history, its framework had many critics especially among theorists who questioned if physical bodies were not in a way socially constructed and whether they ever existed apart from culturally fashioned meanings about them (Shepard & Walker 2009). Early women historians equated gender with sex. This meant that the physical body is what they used to classify gender. This was the bone of contention with other scholars who rightly asserted that it would be simplistic to equate gender with sex. However, since the field of women’s history originated in social history, and so because the early women’s history did not seriously interrogate bodies as a historic subject, most of the early women historian did not confront the dilemma of the sex/gender distinction which continued to inform the assumptions of their work (Shepard & Walker 2009).

Theorizing about gender increased from the 1970s through the 1980s among women historians but their emphasis was more on the relation of gender to other categories, more so class and patriarchy but not on so much on the gender itself. According to Shepard & Walker (2009) “efforts of this sort continued in many ways to conceptual gender, class and other social processes as distinct which made it difficult to capture the complexity and particularity of their unified processes in a specific historical circumstance”. In absence pf a standard definition of what constituted gender, historians continued to write about gender from the Western cultural view of what constitutes gender. However by 1980s other issues had come up that challenged this position calling for a more inclusive approach.

An analysis of gender and history has also focused on the position of the woman during colonialism in Africa and elsewhere. The woman was seen first as a daughter, then as a woman and finally as a prostitute. Any woman who stayed alone was seen as a prostitute. Women were seen as safe when within the confines of their home in the countryside. Those in towns were stereotyped as being of loose morals and rebels. Although the fuller investigation of these points would follow in the studies of gender and colonialism of the 1990s, scholars of race and slavery in the Americas and Europe were zealous in pointing out that the bodies of colored women had been socially constructed to meet the interests of Europeans since the first colonial contacts.

Still in the 1980s the field of women’s history was thriving. By this time it supported influential journals in Europe and in the United States. Works in women’s history were beginning to appear on the lists of major publishers and also in prominent general historical journals. It was however not all rosy. Critics within the profession questioned the legitimacy of the field of women history and its practitioners. Women history was described as narrow, over-specialized and immaterial to the truly important matter of history (Downs 2004). Women’s historians were accused of trying to fashion their own life frustrations into a respected field. A more unifying concept of gender free of activism might as a matter of fact provide legitimacy for the field and its practitioners (Shepard & Walker 2009).

If gender could be argued out as a key field of experience for both all persons, then gender is a subject of universal relevance. Joan Scotts’s (1986) article titled “Gender: A Useful Concept of Historical Analysis,” which appeared on the American Historical Review, December 1986 issue, was written in this political context. This was a no mean achievement for a prestigious conservative journal. Scott noted that the proliferation of case studies in women’s history called for some synthesizing perspective and the discrepancy between the high quality of the work then in women’s history and the continued marginal status of the field as a whole pointed up the limits of descriptive approaches that do not address dominant disciplinary concepts in terms that can shake their power and transform them. The articles purpose was to examine the implications of feminists’ growing tendency to use gender as a way of referring to the social organization between the sexes and to offer a useable theoretical formulation of gender as a category of historical analysis. Scott found the feminist theorizing of the 1960s and 1970s limited because they tended to contain reductive or simple generalizations that undercut both history’s disciplinary sense of the complexity of social causation and feminist commitments to analysis that would lead to change (Scott 1986).

According to Scott, historically gender has been used as a primary way of signifying relations of power (Scott1999). The power in question is the power of domination and subordination; differential control over or access to material and symbolic resources. Emphasis is laid on the difference as a characteristic of power derived from the oppositional binarity of gender, but it also defined and limited the concept of gender which having been defined could not operate other than as a vehicle for this power. Women in most societies have been dominated by men.

However this proposition is challenged by a number of non western scholars who argue that not all societies organized on the basis of gender as implied in the work of most Western historians. Oyeronke Oyeyumi (2005), an African Historian from Nigeria is one of them. Oyeyumi argues that Western work on gender has been and continues to be preoccupied with the oppositionally sexed body, which in inhabit the category gender and invests it with a rigid corporeal determinism. This she argues is not universal but specific to the western cultures and history. If gender is socially constructed, then it cannot behave in the same way across time and space. Therefore if gender is a social construction there must be a specific time in each culture when it began and therefore the time before this beginning it never did exist. Thus gender as a social construction is also a historical and cultural phenomenon which may presumably have not existed in some societies.

In a similar view, Ifi Amadiume (1987) criticized the use of Western gender concept as a category for analyzing Africa history of gender. She argues that the ethnocentricity of gender of early feminist anthropology does not have a bearing on African societies. To these groups she argues the social and cultural inferiority of women was not questionable. In her work among the Igbo culture in eastern Nigeria, Amadiume did identify a gender system through which numerous mythical, social and culture distinctions were articulated according to a binary of masculine and feminine. But she also did establish that in this binary the attributes associated with females did not necessarily lead to economic or political subordination of the social group women and that the social institutions, especially those of male daughters and female husbands permitted individual females to enjoy those privileges of social positions gendered masculine.

In the United States, intervening decades have given birth to a rich and expanding scholarship on the history of colored women. The colored slave woman owed his master and the men his master had selected for her sexual favors and reproductive services on top of the labor (Gerald, N.G., Billias, G.A 1991). The work written on the colored woman history is however minimal compared to what have been written on white women. Furthermore much of the work done on colored women still subordinates them within the history of white women. What that means is that American historians, until very recently, have showed little interest in identifying differences between West African and colonial Euro-American ideas of the social and cultural relations of the male and the female or giving interpretive authority to evidence of differences between African American and Euro-American communities over time in the United States. Of greater importance is the construction of colored women as negative markers of a Western concept of gender and the pressure borne on colored women to conform to those to that concept. To greater extent this centers the story on Western concept, not on African American women or on the understandings of gender that may have characterized their communities (Collins 1989).

To illustrate further the problems in the use of gender as a category in historic analysis, North America can be studied. The early republic provides vital information because that is where U.S women’s history began classics like Carroll Smith Rosenberg’s “Beauty, the Beast and the Militant Woman,” Kathryn Kish Sklar’s “Catharine Beecher” and Nancy Cott’s “The Bonds of Womanhood” (Cott 1997).These works sought to understand the origins of the late twentieth century trope of gender in the nineteenth-century. This was not unusual because like other historians, these women historians studied subjects in the past that were of continued relevance to their day. They focused on the social and intellectual life in the early American Republic that resonated in the female struggle. This majored on familial, political, legal, and economic subordination of women as a group by men as a group. The works continued to organize the field as it developed with works such as Women of the Republic by Linda Kerber, Daughters of Liberty by Mary Beth Norton and Good wives by Laurel Ulrich. The wives in the seventeenth and eighteenth century played a greater role in the management of the family resources. It was taken as the duty of a wife to defend and take care of the husband’s investments. Wives were supposed to be aggressive in this. However during the nineteenth century, the woman’s role in the management of the husband’s wealth diminished significantly (Cott 1997).

Another milestone in the study of gender analysis is the entry of women into public jobs in the 20th century (Scharpf & Schmidt 2000). This brought profound change to the woman. She got financial independence and her dependence on the man diminished. This entry into the job market went hand in hand with increased education attainment, increased civil rights like the right to vote and increased participation in the political process. These were great milestones for women that changed completely the relationship with the man. With it too came increased divorce rates, and choosing not to get married.

When gender is treated as a question of analysis, it encourages the researcher to regard the sources of information more critically and more creatively. To some extent it is true that historians have been able to establish gender as a category of historic analysis. This is because the circumstances human beings operate in have expectations of behavior and conduct based on ones sexuality. These are either classified as masculinity or feminine. A man is expected to act and behave in a masculine way while the woman is supposed to portray a feminine behavior. These expectations have over the course of history shaped the relationship between the males and the females. Not only that but also within a sex, treatment is different. In America for example, An African American woman, a white woman and a native Indian woman were all treated differently.

Sociologists believe that there is four different ways of social conflict. Most sociologists will use the theoretical or perspective approach to help research. There are a multitude of approaches that are used by sociologist but, the mainly stick to three types of theories. The first would be the structural – functional theory, then the social conflict theory, and finally the symbolic interaction theory. Within these three approaches are several more ways to gain research (Conflict Theories, 2011).

The social conflict theory tries to show that society creates conflict due to the inequalities that are present in everyday life. Most sociologists will use the macro level orientation theory simply because it takes society as a whole and shows how it shapes our lives. It uses terms like inequality, power, authority, competition, and exploitation (Conflict Theories, 2011).

Some of the examples that would be used in the social conflict theory are authority. Authority takes into account the family, patriarchy, race and ethnicity hierarchies of authority. In inequality there is family, health, and property. Inequality looks at how people are treated and how are perceived by others. Then there is competition which; can be anything from education, religion, to who will move over when you pass someone on the street. Competition is ingrained in all of us from the time we are born until the time we die (Conflict Theories, 2011).

The power and exploitation can go hand in hand. The people that are in power or come to power got that way by exploiting citizens along the way. Power, if not kept in check, will

make the honest of men corrupt. Once the corruption sets in they will use that power to exploit people along the way to gain more power (Conflict Theories, 2011).

Karl Marx believed there two groups of people in society, the wealthy and the poor. He studied what would happen if one group decided to up rise against the other. He looks to see what would happen and what roles the people involved would take. Once the sides are chosen and the revolt has begun, Marx will study the inner workings of the dominate class to see how they retain their status after the conflict has ended (Conflict Theories, 2011).

Social conflict can be either used for good or bad. Take any uprising against the local government. In Somalia the people have been fighting their government for equality and fairness. The government themselves are fighting its own people to keep the control or power. All across time there is human uprising against those in power. The earlier battles were fought for land, the later battles are fought for greed, power, and wealth.

Some examples of bad social conflict are the recent increase in school shootings, bombings, and over all violence that is plaguing the country today. Unfortunately the innocent by stander is usually the one getting hurt or killed. This is not just limited to the United States; it is all across the globe. Those that are in power want more power and wealth to control those who are less fortunate.

So, the social conflict theory is about those in power wanting to stay in power and those not in powers wanting to gain power. Throughout time there have been many battles waged in the desire to gain power. It all began with Karl Marx and has evolved over time to incorporate many other theories about crime and what causes it.

There is also the realistic theory; this theory is about one’s group gain, due to another group’s loss. This can be brought on by limited resources, this can lead to conflict. This can lead to more friction within each group when they compete for resources. This theory is a social psychological theory thought to explain prejudice (Conflict Theories, 2011).

An example for this would be immigration. With all the bombings, terrorist attacks, and violence from one ethnic group or religious group. With the recent Boston bombings, this will lead to a negative reaction to all immigrants of Muslim decent. It doesn’t matter if they are of Middle Eastern decent, people will see just the color of their skin and automatically lump them into one category, terrorist.

This theory can be traced back through history. It can be seen with the British and Native Americans, Whites and blacks, Japanese and American, and recently middle eastern and Americans. Most of these conflicts have happened over one ethnicity doesn’t like what the other one believes, whether it is religion, politics, or moral standings.

Muzafer Sherif did the famous study called “Robbers Cave “in 1954. He basically took two groups of teenage boys, put them in a camp, and had them compete against each other. He had 22 boys in the study, all middle class white boys. These boys all came from similar backgrounds and upbringing. He randomly assigned them to a group (McLeod, 2008).

In the first week of the experiment, the two groups bonded with each other. The boys chose group names and stenciled them on their clothing and a flag. They bonded over hiking, swimming, and hanging out. This created and attachment that bonded the boys together (McLeod, 2008).

In the second week he challenged the boys to competitions against the other group. He used activities like, baseball, tug-of-war and other games. The winning group would receive a trophy at the end of the competition. He also included individual prizes to create competition against the other group and within the groups (McLeod, 2008).

The boys became physically, verbally, and mentally abusive towards each other. They burned each other’s flags, tore up sleeping areas, and had to be physically restrained by the researchers. This study showed that it doesn’t matter where you come from, you can turn to prejudice (McLeod, 2008).

Then there is the Game Theory which states “investigates the strategic behavior of decision makers who are aware that their decisions affect one another” (Skekel, 2013). The gaming theory believed that people interacted with each other similar to a game. This was done by strategic moves, winners and losers, rewards and punishments, or profits and cost. It was the first model used to describe how the human population interacts (Game Theory An Overview, 2013).

So, with this theory you will have players, strategies, and consequences just like in a game. There are many types of games like zero-sum game, non-zero sum game, simultaneous move games, sequential move games, one-shot games, and repeated games. These games are used to study the gaming theory (Game Theory An Overview, 2013).

A popular gaming theory is the prisoner’s dilemma. The prisoner’s dilemma shows” why two individuals might not agree, even if it appears that it is best to agree” (Game Theory An Overview, 2013). They use two people who have committed a crime and pit one against the other. The sentencing is done by how the criminals talk, or not talk. If one partner talks, they get sentenced and the other set free. If they both remain quiet they get a short sentence, if they both talk they both get a moderate sentence. They never reveal what the prisoners chose to do (Game Theory An Overview, 2013).

The Sumerian civilization was one of the earliest in Mesopotamia. The Sumerians existed around 3500-1750 B.C. The Sumerian civilization was not discovered until the 19th century. The following manuscript will cover three key topics the Sumerian Creation Story, the compared social class system to the contemporary United States, and how the hierarchical structure set forth by the Sumerian Empire compares with our current criminal justice system. Lastly, the educational material will show the similarities and differences between the ancient Sumerian Empire and today’s contemporary United States. This research will help individuals understand early civilizations and how they compare to today’s society. The information discovered will also show how early civilizations built their societies.

The Social Class Structures and Criminal Justice Systems of Sumerian and the United States

Sumer was a collection of city states around the Lower Tigris and Euphrates rivers in what is now southern Iraq. It was a collection of farming villages. Each of these cities had individual rulers; although the leader of the dominant city could have been considered the king of the region. The Sumerians formed the earliest written language. Their religious beliefs also are found to have some similarities with the Bible, especially the book of Genesis.

This essay will compare and contrast the Sumerian Empire and the United States. To compare and contrast the two the Sumerian Creation, social classes, and criminal justice system will be assessed. First, I will evaluate the story of the Sumerian Creation. Next, I will compare the different social classes between the Sumerian civilization and the United States. Lastly, I will discuss the hierarchical structure set forth by the Sumerian Empire compared to our current criminal justice system.

Literature Review

This literature review focuses on literature regarding Sumer and the Sumerian

Creation Story, particularly focusing on the Sumerian social class hierarchy.

Additionally, this literature review examines the contemporary social structure in the

United States and the current criminal justice system.

Discussion
Sumerian Creation Story

The Sumerians Creation Story begins with the earth and the heavens being created in the sea. The Sumerian myths have been pieced together due to the age of the remains found. After the earth and the heavens were created the gods created cities and each city had its own god. The male god, “An”, and the female god, “Ki”, gave birth to Enlil, the chief god of the pantheon. Enlil impregnated Ninlil, the goddess of wind, which created the moon. When the moon was created then it was time to create humans. The Sumerian gods created some humans out of silt or clay.

From the evaluation of the Sumerians Creation Story similarities to the Bible can be found. As in Genesis, the Sumerians’ world is formed the heavens and earth are separated from one another by a solid dome. The second chapter of Genesis introduces the paradise Eden, a place which is similar to the Sumerian Dilmun. (Gen. 2:9-10) In the second version of the creation of man “The Lord God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being.” The Sumerian gods used a similar method in creating man (Kramer & Maier p. 33).

Sumerian and United States: Social Class

The Sumerian social class is split into three social groups. These social groups consist of upper class, in-between class or middle class, and lowest class. At the top of the Sumerian upper class is the king and priests. The upper class also included landowners, government officials, and merchants. Something that stood out in the Sumerian social class was that women had more rights in early Sumer than in later Mesopotamia. Upper class women were priestesses. The Sumerian women were landowners, merchants, artisans, and most raised children. Slaves made up the lowest class along with prisoners, orphans, poor children, and debtors. The Sumerians used slaves as cheap labor. Sumerians allowed slaves the right to do business, borrow money, and buy freedom.

In the United States the economists and sociologists have not devised exact guidelines for the social classes. Instead there are two set classes including the three-class model that consist of the rich, middle class, and the poor. In the three-class model the rich of course have the wealth, middle class consist of those who work white collar jobs, and the poor are the blue collar workers or those who are unemployed. The other model that is most commonly used is the five-class model including upper class, upper-middle, middle-middle, lower-middle, and lower class. In the five-class model it is broke down a little more. The upper class term is applied to the “blue bloods” who are the families who are multi-generational wealth. These families also have leadership in high society. The rest of the upper class is followed by those who have made significant investment off of capital and stock options as well as the corporate elite who have high salary jobs such as being a Chief Executive Officers (CEO). The upper middle class consists of highly-educated salaried professional: physicians, lawyers, scientists, and professors. The upper middle class tends to have a great influence over society. The middle class and the lower middle class seem to overlap. The middle class consists of semi-professionals, craftsmen, office staff, and sales employees. These people often have college degrees. The lower middle class often includes the same professions except for those in the lower middle class do not have a college degree. Those without the college degree are often on the entry level in those careers. The low class is the blue collar workers. These blue collar workers are considered the working poor. Most of the population in the United States is considered the working class or the working poor.

Sumerian and United States: Criminal Justice System

The Sumerian legal system, one of the earliest known criminal justice systems,

focused on a citizen’s compliance with the social norms and religious beliefs of the day.

Regardless of social class, strict compliance with orders and instructions was rewarded,

while failure to comply was punished (Sterba, 1976, p. 25). Such punishment was

commensurate with the injury (Sterba, 1976). The Sumerians established a system of

laws to deal with personal injuries, slave issues, sexual offenses, marital problems, and

agricultural disputes? (Milosavljevic, 2007, p. 7). Regulating the behavior of its citizens

helped keep the social order.

From its earliest days, the criminal justice system in America has served to protect

the interests of the rich, property-owning classes. Crime is often associated with the

working poor and the underclass (Jargowsky & Park, 2009). Because of this, crime is

often a problem in urban areas with low income levels. Elevated crime levels have been

attributed to neighborhood social disorganization stemming from urban structural

changes, residential instability, and racial/ethnic transitions (Jargowsky & Park, 2009,

p.30). The contemporary criminal justice system has been viewed as a means of

regulating class interests by insuring that enforcement efforts are directed toward the

regulation of the poor. (Weiner, 1975, p. 436).

Conclusion

There are several differences between Sumer and contemporary American society.

For instance, the position of women is markedly different in the two social structures.

Additionally, slavery no longer exists in the United States, eliminating this lowest of

social classes. The communal lifestyle of Sumer stands in sharp contrast to the capitalist

society of the United States. Finally, the criminal justice systems of these two societies

have different goals and objectives.

Among the differences between Sumer and the United States is the position of

women in society. In Sumer, it was the male citizens who comprised the assembly of

elders and who controlled the power and wealth of the community. Unlike in Sumer, the

United States is no longer controlled exclusively by men. In the United States, the

proclamation that ?all men are created equal? has been interpreted to include women as

well as people from all social classes. The Fourteenth Amendments Equal Protection

clause guarantees that “no state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (U.S. Const. Amend. XIV). Thus, people of all classes, as well as women, are protected equally by the laws of the United States. Another difference between Sumer and the United States is slavery. Until 1863, slavery was legal in the United States (Harr & Hess, 2002).The Emancipation Proclamation officially freed the slaves and outlawed slavery (Harr & Hess, 2002). Those in the slave states did not immediately comply with the Emancipation

Proclamation (Harr & Hess, 2002). The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States

Constitution abolished slavery in America (U.S. Const. Amend. XIII). In contrast, slaves

made up the lowest social class in Sumer. Unlike in the United States, the people of Sumer had a communal lifestyle. People did not work for money, nor did they compete to get rich at the expense of other individuals. The great majority safely depended on the head of their estate to fill their needs, and he, in turn, depended on them to increase and protect his wealth and position (Ellison, 1964, p. 22). Further, each city was conceived to be the special concern of one

of the gods in Mesopotamia, and in a sense the equalitarianism of government placed

each man in the position of being a guardian of that god’s interests (Ellison, 1964, p. 24).

In contrast, the United States has both urban and rural communities in which people work

for money and attempt to better their social situation. Additionally, under capitalism

people work for their own self-interests and have an opportunity to change their social

class by getting an education and accumulating greater wealth.

The objective of the criminal justice system in these two societies differed as well.

In Sumer, punishment for crime attempted to make the victim whole again or was

retribution commensurate with the type of harm inflicted. The Sumerian code of Ur-Nammu focused on restitution as the primary approach to criminal justice (Van Ness, 1991). In the United States, crime is defined as an offense against the State instead of against a specific individual (Van Ness, 1991). Because of this, the offender is not held personally responsible for restoring the victim. However, restitution is sometimes made part of sentencing and victim’s rights are becoming more important within the criminal justice system.

The cultures, social class hierarchies, and legal systems of Sumer and the United

States are significantly different; yet, the class structure and criminal justice system of

Sumer offers unique insights into our own society. The similarities and differences

highlight the importance of understanding where civilization began and where we intend

to go from here. Because of the complexity of the relationship between social class and

crime, it is vital to remain aware of the goals of the criminal justice system.

Education has been considered an investment value. Those who acquire additional schooling generally earn more over their lifetimes, achieve higher level of employment, and enjoy more satisfying careers. It also enable people to more fully enjoy life, appreciate literature and culture and be more socially involved citizens.

Private returns to education refer to the benefits received by the individual who acquires additional schooling. These include economic benefits such as higher lifetime earnings, lower level of unemployment, and greater job satisfaction, improve health and longevity.

Social returns refer to positive or possibly negative consequences that accrue to individuals other than the indivudal or family making the decision. About how much schooling to acquire. These are the benefits not taken into account by the decision-maker.

II. Rationales for Government involvement In Post Secondary Education

Efficiency gains result in an increase in society’s total output of goods and services, and thus allow achievement of higher average living standards

Equity considerations relate not to the average standards of living but how society’s total output is distributed among citizens.

Second argument to intervention is that in the absence of interventions such as student loan programs – individuals who might benefit from higher education but who do not have the financial resources to finance the investment are typically unable to use their potential human capital as collateral for loan.. The talent of the population may not be fully utilized and the total output of goods and services may fall short of its potential. Both of these efficiency rationales involve a potential market failure. The first arises because of positive external benefits associated with education -social benefits that exceed private benefits. The second arises because of a failure in credit market that results in some individuals being unable to finance productive investments.

III. Estimating Private and Social Returns to Education

Education is one of the best predictors of success in the labour market. More educated workers earn higher wages, have greater earnings growth over their lifetimes, experience less unemployment and work longer

Higher education is also associated with higher longer life expectancy, better health and reduced participation in crime.

According to human capital theory, schooling raises earnings because it enhances workers skills thus making employees more productive and more valuable to employers.

III. Social Returns to Education

positive or possibly negative consequences that accrue to individuals other than the indivudal or family making the decision. About how much schooling to acquire. These are the benefits not taken into account by the decision-maker.

A. Innovation, knowledge creation and economic growth

new growth theory: emphasizes the contribution of knowledge creation and innovation in fostering advances in living standards over time.. education plays an important role in economic growth . knowledge creation and innovation respond to economic incentives, and thus can be influenced by public policy.

The education and skill formation systems play an important role in fostering innovation and advancing knowledge. There are 3 main dimensions to this role

related to research function of educational institutions esp. universities – can be an important source of new ideas. Accgd. To this perspective the human capital of the workforce is a crucial factor facilitating the adoption of new and more productive technologies. Human capital of the workforce is a crucial factor facilitating the adoption of new and more productive technologies. The transfer of knowledge function msut be reflected to the returns to education. Those receiving educ will become more prodictive and thus more valuable to the employers. Post sec educ in oecd countries is relatively more important than with primary and secondary educ in developing countries

B. Knowledge spillovers

Static knowledge spillovers arise if more education raises not only the productivity of those receinvg the education but alos the productivity of those they work with and interact with.

Jacobs argue that cities are engine of growth bec they facilitate the exchange of ideas esp. between entrepreneurs and managers

Such knowledge spillovers can take place thorugh the echange of ideas, imitation and learning by doing

C. Non-market effects of education

Other forms of benefits other than higher wages or non-wage benefits from working. This includes improved onw health or child dev. – private in nature and thus may be taken into account by individuals in cjoosing the amount of educ to acquire.

Authors find considerable impact of educ on a wide variety of non-0market and social benefits even after controlling income, age, health and race. This includes

effect of wifes’ schooling on husband earnings

effect of parents educ on child outcomes (intergenerational effects): education, cognitive ability, health and fertility choices

effect of educ on own health and spouse health

effect of educ on consumer choice efficiency, labour market etc

effect of educ on charitable giving and volunteeractivity

higher ave of educ levels in the community lower school dropout rates of children

D. Intergenerational effect

parents education has strong effects on children, resulting in large intergenerational effects

parental educ on a number of child outcomes including

higher parental educ is associated with lower fertility via increased efficiency of contraception as well as via raising the age of both marriage and first pregnancy. The resulting of lower pop growth is positive for economic growth in dev countires

incidence of teenage childbearing is much higher for children of less educated parents

child abuse and neglect are also associarted with parents educ

high parental educ – more subs family investments in children , loer criminal propensities , improved child health

children of less educated poarents generally cost more to educate

intergenerational benefits of educ to society: lower educ cost, less ue of foster care and juvenile diversion, lower crime, lower heakth cost and lower dependence on welfare transfers

E. Health and longeivity

child health is posivitve related to parents educ

results to superior health behaviors: reduced smoking, more exercise and low incidence of heavy drinking

educ people adopt newer drugs due to ability to learn and more info thus educ leads to better health

F. Criminal Activity

high educ levels may lower crime byb raising wage rates, which increase the opportunity cost of crime

lower crime rates

G. Civic participation

correlation between educ and voting is high .

higher educ is also associated with greater charitable giving and volunteerism

trust and participation

educ raises the quality of peoples involvement in the society

H. Tax and transfer returns

more educ are less likely to return on public transfers wven when elgivible for benefits

FLEMISH EDUCATION, BETWEEN MERTIOCRACY AND EGALITARANISM
By: Ides Nicaise

I. A Century of Reforms- without much success

social inequality in education still exist in flanders

compulsory educ until the age of 18

90’s began with an experimentation on ” positive discrimination” schools with a large number of pupils from underprivileged groups (immigrants, disadvantaged pupils) received additional funding

What is lacking is a clear choice in favour of a more egalitarian of educ

Two Basic Views of Equality

Meritocracy

Egalitarianism

Both visions to a certain extent share the same concern: out an end to the unjustified passing on of power , prestige, and wealth based on a person’s descent.

Allocation of social positions should no longer be ascribed to individuals based on their origins (the principle of ascription), rather these positions should be acquired based on achievement

Every member of society should regardless of social origin have the same opportunities to prove himself

Meritocracy – an ideology of equal opportunities .. and unequal treatment

Principle of individual merit which boils down to a combination of talent and effort

False justice theory, results in a disguised reproduction of the existing inequalities

Tony Blair- ambition to make his country a meritocratic society. Nederlands and Sweden were the first to achieve the higest stage of a meritocratic educ society

Social positions to be distribuited on the basis of merit (talent and effort)

The existing social inequality can essentially be explained by three set of factors

innate abilities – genetically determined

social background- transfer of matrial assets, social networks, and cultural capital. This is regarded as unfair ; these are the mechanisms that have to be eliminated as much as possible , eg by the provision of free and freely accessible educ. Accdg. To meritocratic thinking, society is not responsible for the two other sets of factors. Innate ability (for the time being) a question of coincidence, personal effect-responsibility of every individual

personal preferences and effort

opposed to the social transfer of power and prosperity, but inequality exists in ” merit” . the merit ” talent” . it is implicitly assumed that tlents are purely randomly distributed among the pop. And tehrfore have nothing to do with social origins

The meritocratic recipe for educ can be summarized in 3 major principles

everyone must have equal access to education according to innate ability .

equal opportunities : opportunities refer to coincidental factor which is not within our power and which helps determine the outcomes of educ and future social pos. The aim is not therefore equal outcomes, but a particular distribution of possible outcomes which are unrelated to a person’s social background

equal access educ is not unconditional. Everyone should have access to educ accdg to his innate ability. It is accepted that not everyone gains access to the same extent to a given level or type of educ. Specifically, financial obstacles in education will have to be eliminated as much as possible but that admission tests or intelligence tests can be accepted a legitimate selection criteria.

Unequal treatment of individuals based on merit is regarded as legitimate. In other words it is accepted that more is invested in persons who display a greater innate ability and or more personal effort. .

moral to economic interaˆ¦ regarded as fair community invest more resources in people with more talent, perhaps they have merited this, but bec they are expected to contribute more in the future to collective prosperity to those who have shall be given inequality based on social background will disappear if the two previous principles are consistently applied

Principle of equal opportunites has been translated into compulsory education and free educ. Compulsory educ is a way of legally limiting parents’ freedom of choice regarding educational participation

Second principle- differential treatment accdg to talent and effort, forms the counterbalance to this mildness at the entrance gate . Flemish educ is extremely selective and achievement -oriented

What is wrong with meritocracy?

John Goldthorpe – inherited talents are in no way an element of merit and as a result the ethical justification for this social model is immediately negated

Dick pels- adds a number of arguments to demonstrate that even on a labour market regarded as competitive and meritocratic

Youn- meritocracy in its most perfect form eventually leads to a new type of class-based society

Egalitarianism: a relic from the communist era?

Egalitarianism is the basic percepts of human rights, ie the equal dignity and freedom of people

The right of educ may not depend on the talents of an individual but is, to a certain extent, an absolute right

Absolute rights do indeed apply to ” basic goods

John Rawls- people will agree that distribution of basic goods must be strictly egalitarian and may not be dependent on something like talents, precisely bec. Talents are unearned

Inequalities that contribute to an improvement in the position of the poorest citizens – gradation differences exist within egalitarianism: at the level of elem educ., it refers to equal outomes (a level that everyone should attain), at the higher level- equal opportunities

The emphasis on equal outcomes (elem and sec) forms a second critical area of difference bet. Egalitarianism and meritocracy. Amartya Sen emphasis the basic right is only effective if the result is achieved, not if it is written down in law. This means that authorities bear the responsibility for guaranteeing the implementation of basic rights for all.

Principle of positive discrimination- priority given to disadvantage

Egalitarianism implicitly assumes that equal outcomes are possible. Students in the primary and sec levels are in the position to achieve the targets

Traces of egalitarianism in Flemish educ: attainment targets in guaranteeing pupils with the same min skill level remains limited. Study grants from merit.. to egalitarian vision

Trojan Horse of the Lower Classes

Protagonist of greater equality are not infrequently accused but face with some questions:

A society cannot consist solely of university graduates . labour market also needs semi-skilled workers. . the egalitatain base refers to basic education.

– equal outcomes can be interpreted in 2 ways: strict def.: same target level is applied for every individual , broader def. accepts certain variation in individuals. In other words, individual differences are tolerated but the average outcomes among children from various social environments must be equalized

– resistnace to egalitarianism: postivie discrimination in favour of the underprivileged groups could be flipside of negative discrimination against them (white person with high score over black with low score- black gets priorty- contest

– educ is not a zero sum game in which better outcomes for one group are achived at the expense of poore results for another group. The key is to adapt reform and strategies that more equal outcomes go hand in hand with a sin-win sit for every one (ex. R3educed referral to SPED

Educational Strategies for disadvantaged youth in 6 European countries
By : I. Nicaise

Intro

Gen. level of educ is increased but has demonstrated that in most countries inequality is passed on unrelentingly .. social exclusion

Social Equality in Education

Current educ system filters, segregates and reproduces social inequality

Dream of democratic educ sys- the dream of equal opportunites and unhindered social mobility. Everyone is entitled to benefit to a resonalbe extent from their education .

Whether consciously or not, many harbour meritocratic view of education, it is assumed that everyone has equal opportunites but equal porofit is certainly not an aim because aaacdg to the theory, the unequal benefit from educ merely reflects the efforts and talents of each individual . As Goldthrope demosntatres, meritocratic ideology expliclty perceives unequal educational outcomes as fair. .. it hastily passess over the issue of the unequal socity in which education is rooted

A priori opportunities are not equal and unequal outcomes are not fair

2. Equal Opportunity Strategies

Integrated approach to poverty, inequality and social exc

“Sexual identity usually refers to how individuals think of themselves,” Seidman, Fischer, and Meeks, 2006, p. 133). These identities include, but are not limited to heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual. People come to accept these different identities as their own, but not without learning society’s position on each of them. As with all things in life, the presence of nonconformity brings conflict. This paper will discuss these sexual identities, the contemporary issues associated with each, and a personal account of my struggles finding my own sexual identity.

Sexual identity is social. Society defines the different sexual categories and teaches us what characteristics these individuals and groups should have. Society labels these people and their behaviors as normal or abnormal and right or wrong, (Seidman, Fischer, and Meeks, 2006, p. 133). Through the years, heterosexuality, or an attraction to the opposite sex, has been viewed as right and normal according to society. This is evident in the social institutions that regulate sexuality. First, political institutions make laws stating who can get married and even who can have sex with whom. Families exhibit a portrait of the norm as a man, woman, and children. Religions have rules about many aspects of sexuality. The media and medical community also influence sexuality (Seidman, Fischer, and Meeks, 2006, p. 175). According to Kimberly Tauches, the view that heterosexuality is the only acceptable form of sexuality is called heteronormativity, (as cited in Seidman, Fischer, and Meeks, 2006, p. 175).

Generally, humans tend to possess a fear of the unknown. Many times, this fear breeds discrimination and hate. Therefore, when individuals state their attraction to members of the same sex, they are often met with ridicule, rejection, and oppression. This sexual identity is called homosexuality and is considered a deviation from society’s paradigm of normal. Homosexuals all over the world claim they are the same as everyone else. They argue that there is nothing abnormal about their lifestyles and are forced to fight for social acceptance. In Homosexuality, Opposing Viewpoints (1999), Erin Blades states, “The search for the gay gene is itself homophobic. Instead of just accepting the fact that some people are straight and some people are lesbian, gay, or bisexual, people are searching for a cause – as if homosexuality is a disease. Nobody’s looking for the heterosexual geneaˆ¦ Homosexuality isn’t considered natural. That’s why a cause is being searched for,” (p. 48). Erin is right. Society views this sexual identity as deviant and immoral. There have been numerous studies attempting to determine whether or not there is a biological or psychological cause for homosexuality. The implication is that if we can determine its cause, we can fix it. Julie Harren states, “In fact, many researchers hypothesize that a homosexual orientation stems from a combination of biological and environmental factors,” (n.d., p. 1). She goes on to say, “While environmental factors may include experiences of sexual abuse or other traumatic events, a common contributor to same-sex attractions is a disruption in the development of gender identity. Gender identity refers to a person’s view of his or her own gender; that is, his or her sense of masculinity or femininity. Gender identity is formed through the relationships that a child has with the same-sex parent and same-sex peers,” (Harren, n.d., p. 1). Religioustolerance.org states, “Many social and religious conservatives in North America, their organizations and supporters are heavily promoting the restriction of rights and protections for sexual minorities. Their target is at what they call the ‘gay agenda’ of marriage and other forms of equality,” (Homosexuality and Bisexuality, Welcome to the conflict section, para. 2). These people work toward a culture where homosexuals would be denied rights, including marriage; and their sexual identities would be considered chosen behaviors that are abnormal, unnatural, and sinful (Homosexuality and Bisexuality, Welcome to the Conflict section, para. 2). LGBT persons, or lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgendered individuals, and transsexuals, are working toward a culture where right the opposite is true. They want equal rights, including the right to marry and adopt children. They want to be free from discrimination and oppression. Homosexuals have taken a great deal of criticism because they are accused of not having self-control over their urges to have deviant sex. Most homosexuals contend that this is not what it’s all about. Erin Blades (1999) writes, “When I say I’m gay, I’m not just talking about who I sleep with. It’s not what I do, it’s who I am. It’s so much more than sex. Even outside the bedroom my identity as a lesbian colours every aspect of my life. If people weren’t so concerned about sex (especially homosexual sex), we wouldn’t be hunting for the gay gene,” (as cited in Williams, 1999, p. 49).

Another sexual identity that is often considered abnormal through society’s eyes is bisexuality. Not only do heterosexuals consider this sexuality deviant, but so do many homosexuals. Paula C. Rodriguez Rust states, “Bisexuals are often told they don’t exist, and that they should make up their minds whether they are lesbian/gay or heterosexual,” (as cited in Seidman, Fischer, and Meeks, 2006, p. 166). She stresses the importance of unity and the acceptance of all people. She disagrees with people who say bisexuality doesn’t exist. Rust states, “Culturally, the reasons many people feel compelled to protect the ‘gay/straight’ mindset in which bisexuality does not exist are understandable – they are the self-protective reasons that many people prefer to pretend that things they fear or don’t understand don’t exist – but it’s not a very realistic, respectful, or open-minded way to live in the world,” (as cited in Seidman, Fischer, and Meeks, 2006, p. 170). In this same interview, Paula Rust explains how bisexual people can be celibate or monogamous, just like anyone else. She points out that bisexuality means that one is attracted to either sex. Rust sates, “Bisexuals don’t ‘need’ sex with both men and women; they are simply more open to the possibilities than heterosexuals, lesbians, and gay men who find only one gender sexually interesting,” (as cited in Seidman, Fischer, and Meeks, 2006, p. 167).

After many years of struggling with finding my own sexual identity, I have come to the conclusion that I am bisexual. I say this with a great deal of hesitation because I am a Christian who believes that homosexuality is a sin. My first lesbian relationship was right after I got out of high school. We began as just friends. We tried to keep it a secret because where I live; it was definitely not the norm to be gay then. Despite our verbal secrecy, everyone knew. We were always a topic of conversation I’ve been told. This relationship was very unhealthy. While doing the research for this paper, I found an article about homosexuality that described it perfectly. Julie Harren wrote, “For others, same-sex attractions may not initially be present, but may later develop as a result of entering into a non-sexual friendship which becomes emotionally dependant. An emotionally dependant relationship is one in which two people seek to have their needs met by one another. It is a relationship in which healthy boundaries are not in place. The absence of appropriate emotional boundaries can then lead to a violation of physical boundaries,” (n.d., p. 2). After this relationship, I went on to have several heterosexual relationships. But, a few years later, I found myself involved with a female once again. This time, there was no initial friendship. She was openly gay. Many times, people would ask me if I was gay, and I would say no. If you ask my ex today, she will still tell you that I am not. It wasn’t about whether she was male or female. I just loved her. Had she been a man, I still would have been in love. This brought division to my finally. They disapproved wholeheartedly. I experienced first-hand the discrimination some homosexuals endure their whole lives. After four years, I could no longer deny the conviction God placed in my heart. After much prayer and hesitation, I ended our relationship. I cried for weeks. Actually, I still occasionally cry and long to be back with her. It took a great deal of time to really let go of ‘us.’ Some days, I am not so sure I have completely. We are still friends. I still love her very much. I do not think God wants me to be with her – or any other woman, for that matter. I tried to wait and give my heart time to heal before dating anyone else. Two years later, I am trying it again. I am currently in a relationship with a man. But, I will not deny the attraction I still have for women. Just the other day, I entered a department store and looked over at the service desk. There was a girl with short, spiked hair. I noticed her tattoo sticking out from below her shirt sleeve on her right arm and her pierced lip. I was immediately attracted. Although I believe it to be a sin, I am certain of how I feel. The best I can do is not act on these thoughts and feelings. This is my toughest battle in life. I still catch myself daydreaming of a life with my ex-girlfriend. I am not sure if this will ever go away. I even get angry, wishing I didn’t truly believe what it says in The Bible. But, I believe my God rewards obedience, so I want to follow His direction now. I hope he forgives me. I have no condemnation for others who have not chosen the same path I have. We are all different, and I am perfectly okay with that now. In writing this paper and learning about how others have identified themselves as bisexual despite being in a heterosexual relationship, I have finally accepted this as my sexual identity. I must admit, although I’ve never been able to find the words to describe it as well as these scholars have, while reading their thoughts and opinions, I feel a new sense of self-acceptance. I do not know what my future holds, but I realize I am not alone. Although several different sexual identities exist, finding your own is a very personal and at times, difficult part of life. I am glad that I have found mine. Now I just have to figure out what to do with it.

In the eighteenth century there were an estimated six million slaves in the world. That number, large as it was, does not come close to the number of slaves in today’s society. The current worldwide estimates are over twenty-seven million. Every year seventeen thousand slaves are trafficked into the United States, of that number, eighty percent are women and fifty percent of those (seven thousand) are children. Seventy percent of the females are imported for prostitution. It is astonishing how even though slavery is not seen or heard of much in today’s society it still exists heavily and quietly affects our everyday life. It is extremely sad, yet, regretfully true.

The history of slavery dates back to 1780 B.C. though laws have been passed in most countries that prevent, or at least lessen, slavery, it still exists today. By definition, slavery means the complete ownership and control by a master: to be sold into slavery. Slavery indicates a state of subjugation or captivity often involving burdensome and degrading labor. Slavery occurs when people -known as slaves- were placed in servitude as the property of a household or company. Slaves are deprived of their personal freedom and compelled to perform labor or services. Slaves are the properties of another person, household, company, corporation, or government and are unable to leave or have any freedom. Primarily slaves were sold amongst companies, corporations, governments, or people. The practice of exporting slaves is called slave trafficking. Slavery is currently found in many countries all over the world. In other countries, though known by another name, it is still slavery. In Canada slaves are called “servants” and in Nordic countries they are called “thralls.” In the year 1670 the first African slave was introduced to America. The slaves of that time period were treated poorly; most were beaten with whips for the slightest infraction. Most, were simply tired, hungry or thirsty; some just too old to do the work and were brutally beaten to death. Many slaves would die of illnesses like malaria or yellow fever because of their limited immunities to these diseases. Others died from malnutrition, poor living conditions, and exhaustion; there was a very high mortality rate among slaves.

To this day slaves are still exploited all over the world even though we actually do not see it or hear about it. Although in most countries in today’s society traditional slavery has been abolished, it still exists in some countries and much of the slavery that exists is done so illegally. Some of the countries that have abolished slavery are the United States, Africa, many European countries, and China. Though abolished, it still exists, just using a different title. The highest percentage of slavery that is seen in today’s age is child labor. Many countries have enacted child labor laws, protecting the rights of children. Typically children are not allowed to work until they reach the age of fourteen. There are children as young as four working on plantations. Most child labor laws state that only children over the age of fourteen can work between the hours of seven in the morning until nine at night and no more than forty hours per week or eight hours in one day excluding school days in which they can work after school until 8:00 PM. Children, prior to the age of 18 must get a work permit filled out by their school before they are allowed to work; these children must maintain at least a 2.0 grade point average in order to continue their employment. In many countries this is not the case and the children’s primary duty is work. These children do not have the chance of an education. Child labor is not the only form of slavery still in existence. Some companies maintain a policy of only enslaving adults, while others only employ children. Many children who are put into slavery end up working in clothing manufacturing plants also known as sweatshops. A sweatshop is a factory where workers make products in very poor working conditions. Child labor is also abused in harvesting cotton, fruits, and vegetables. Many slaves also work in sugar cane and coffee factories.

The selling of females, as disgusting as this may sound, is still a common practice in some countries. Young women are often sold by their families for marriage, domestic uses, like cleaning and cooking, while others are sold into sex trafficking and were forced into prostitution.

Many children are taken from their families to become soldiers. Countries such as Lebanon and Colombia regularly enlist young children to carry guns and become soldiers of war. Rarely is this considered a form of slavery, yet by definition, it is.

As you can see there are many types of slavery that still exist today. The following exhibits how the name has changed but the practice is still the same.

Bonded Labor occurs when people have taken a simple loan for something such as medicine, food or housing for themselves or their family and to pay it back they are put to work by the lender creating a type of slavery. With bonded labor often the child of the debtor are put to work in order to pay the bond.

Early and Forced Marriage is the parental practice of selling off daughters as they reach adolescence. Daughters are sold for monetary gain. Frequently, there are also religious reasons for this practice. Their families give the girls into arranged marriages. They have no choice as to who they are to marry. Once married they are owned by their new husband.

Forced Labor is where a person is forced into work by the threat of physical harm. Much like the slavery that we read of in our history books, these slaves work out of fear of violence.

Slavery by Descent means simply that a child is born into slavery. The parents are slaves, thus the child is a slave. It just continues generation after generation.

Trafficking, according to the Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking (C.A.S.T.), is the recruitment and transportation of persons within or across boundaries by force, fraud, or deception for the purpose of exploiting them economically. Trafficked people most commonly work in sweatshops, restaurants, on farms, in manufacturing, prostitution and as private domestic workers

Sadly, many parents end up giving their child into slavery to pay off a debt or simply sell their own children for support their families. Many young women are raped by their owners ending up pregnant thus bring more children into the life of slavery.

This article could have been written in 1808, or 1908, but sadly, it is being written in 2008. You’d think that in today’s civilized society that slavery would truly have been completely abolished, however, the name has just been changed. Slavery affects today’s society so much, even though we do not notice it, slavery is everywhere.

Next time you’re in a department store, pick up some of the products and look to see where they were manufactured. It is highly unlikely that it will have the name of a country with strict child labor laws in place. There are U.S. companies that even move their manufacturing plants outside of the U.S. in order to employ children at a lesser cost. It is extremely hard to believe but most products we use on a daily basis were produced in countries that allow this type of slavery. Products such as sugar, shoes, tea, coffee, chocolate, fruits, and vegetable are made by modern-day slaves.

The U.S. Department of Labor disclosed that our country’s largest retailer, Wal-Mart, was fined a measly 135,000.00 for violating child labor laws. The violation: Children operating chain saws and box crushing machinery. Toys-R-Us was cited for working 14-year-old children late into the night. The management for this huge corporations stated that they misunderstood the child labor laws pertaining to how long they could work a fourteen-year-old child.

While driving through a large city, maybe in the seedier part of town, notice the young girls on the streets. Where did they come from? Did slave traffickers transplant them here? Are they runaways with no other alternatives?

Think about the practices of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints. How is what was going on in Eldorado, Texas any different than sexual slavery? Over 200 women and children were recently taken from this remotely locate temple only after a teenage girl reported that she was being held there against her will and had been forced to marry a fifty year old man as well as have his child. Though illegal, it goes on unknown to most of us to this day.

Most of us, unknowingly, support these new forms of slavery. We buy the products from the companies that employ these workers. We, as a nation, do little more than smirk when we read about the religious organizations that condone arranged, under-aged marriages as well as polygamy.

In conclusion, though you may not see it, slavery still exists. It has taken on new forms. The name has changed. It doesn’t look the same as we have read about in the history books but by any other name it is still slavery. Think about it next time you buy that cute tank top or stop in for your favorite latte’.

Nowadays the problems of poverty and poor Australians are as hot, as in the last century. The situation with poverty in Australia tends to get better, but the problem doesn’t pass away. This paper is devoted to the problems of poverty and the “undeserving poor” class. It is necessary to study the meaning of the term “undeserving poor”, why is it occurred? And is today the problem of the underclass still of great importance for Australians?

To understand the problem fully, it is necessary to study some historical information, and facts about the problems of poverty. Also it is necessary to say about the evidence of this problem in the 21st century, and if the underclass still exist in Australia, and estimate the depth of the problem of the nowadays.

When speaking about the problem of poverty, it is necessary to point out the ways of solving this problem in Australia, and who is responsible for this. Speaking about the poorest, it is clear that they need the help of society and the government. What steps had been taken in the past to stop the problem of the poverty, and what steps have been taken during the last years and decades?

This is a study of poverty, official poverty policy, and the underclass problem both in the past history of Australia and nowadays.

“The undeserving poor” and problems of poverty in Australia

The label “undeserving poor” dates back to the 18th century and refers to a societal underclass had to be poor because of their social position, origin, nationality, membership of national minorities. This term is closely connected with the term underclass. Members of the underclass are not just very poor, or people with low income, but they must have the behavior of a distinct group, a deviant or antisocial outlook on life. (Williams Kelso, 1994)

Some scientists divide the underclass into groups according to the primary reasons of this status: this might include the social underclass, the impoverished underclass, the reproductive underclass, the educational underclass, the violent underclass and the criminal underclass with some expected horizontal mobility between these groups. (Williams Kelso, 1994).

The term “undeserving poor” was used by Michael B. Katz in his book “The Undeserving Poor”, that touches the questions of sociological status of the poorest, who really needs to be helped. He wrote: “Part of the reason is that conventional classifications of poor people serve such useful purposes. They offer a familiar and easy target for displacing rage, frustration, and fear. They demonstrate the link between virtue and success that legitimates capitalist political economy. And by dividing poor people, they prevent their coalescing into a powerful, unified, and threatening political force. Stigmatized conditions and punitive treatment are powerful incentives to work, whatever the wages and conditions”. (Katz, p. 195).

So, it is necessary to find out who are the poor Australians.

There are two ways to define poverty: absolute poverty and relative poverty. Absolute poverty means a certain level of poverty, when people do not have enough resources to survive. Absolute poverty is connected with hunger, starvation and very low level of life, when people just try to survive. As for the relative poverty, it is an economic inequality, a condition of relative deprivation or exclusion from normal social and economic activities and participation.

It is necessary to point out the main causes of of poverty in Australia, that may include:

– inadequate levels of government income support;

– rise in long-term unemployment;

– growing number of single-parent families and households;

– High housing costs and locational disadvantages;

– low wages;

– poor health;

– low levels of educational attainment (Donnison 2001).

McLelland (2000) have described poverty as meaning :

– Not having enough money to make ends meet;

– Having to struggle to survive each and every day;

– Never having enough to be able to live decently;

– Never being able to afford any of the good things in life.

– Having to struggle to survive each and every day.

The level of poverty in Australia at the beginning of the 21st century

In Australia there is no official estimation of the level of poverty, so estimates are made by researchers in various organisations that study social policy issues. To estimate the level of poverty, and to find out how many people can be called poor, special poverty lines are used , that are set at some proportion of median or average income. In Australia the Henderson Poverty Line is often used, that measures poverty through comparison of income with a poverty benchmark which moves in line with population incomes. ()

So, according to the national researches, that at the end of the 20th century, during the 1990’s, about 2 million of Australians were living under the line of poverty, and according to the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling data, the percentage of those who were below the poverty line was about 16.7 % of households, and 13.7 % were classified as “rather poor”.()

According to the statistical data of the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling, poverty levels had risen during the 1990’s, and at the beginning of the 21st century, one of eight Australians were living in poverty in 2000. ()

But, a special attention should be paid to the problem of children poverty, that for Australia is a hot issue. McClelland (2000) describes children that are at the greatest risk of poverty: indigenous Australian children, the children of sole parent families, children where no parent is in paid work, children where the prime source of income is government income support, children in public or private rental accommodation, and children with parents from certain non-English speaking backgrounds. ()

According to the researches, the rate of poverty among children at the beginning of the 21st century was 9.5 %, that means that almost half a million of Australia’s children lived in poverty. Among adults the poverty rate was about 11.5 %, that means that over one and a half million Australian adults were poor. ()

So, the conclusion is that the rate of poverty among children tends to be higher than the rate of poverty among adults.

Figure 1 shows the number of poor children and adults.

Having estimated the number and percentage of people in poverty, it is necessary to give a characteristics of the poor, that allows to assess the factors that lead people into poverty and may provide evidence for the sorts of policies that

might assist people to move out of poverty.

It is often assumed that women have higher rates of poverty than men. However, in 2001, female and male poverty rates were almost identical, with the male poverty rate (at 11.2%) being slightly higher than the female rate of 11%.Higher rates of poverty amongst men could perhaps be attributed to their relatively higher levels of unemployment and decreasing participation rates compared to women.()

Figure 2 shows that while up to the early 1990s, the female unemployment rate was well above the male rate, since that time the rate for women has been consistently lower than for men. This may reflect the decline over the past decade of many traditionally ‘male’ industries, such as manufacturing, in favor of Australia’s developing services sector, which largely employs women (ABS, Australian Social Trends 2002).

When poverty rates are broken down by age, it can be seen that most defined groups experience poverty rates below the national average (figure 3). However, two age groups experience above average rates of financial disadvantage: 15-24 year olds and those aged 55-64.

The high poverty rate amongst 15-24 year olds needs to be analysed with great caution. While we use the income unit as the basis for people sharing resources in this analysis, households and families have many different arrangements for sharing resources. This is particularly so for young people, who may rely on parental support whether they live at home or away from it. In particular, our ABS definition of the ‘income unit’ counts non-dependent children still living in the parental home as a separate income unit and thereby implicitly assumes that they receive no assistance from their parents. We know from our previous research that this group have particularly high apparent poverty rates (Harding et al, 2001, p. 17).

Since 1990, the notion that “the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer” has gained increasing public and media attention. Often, different conclusions are reached depending on how poverty is measured. It is clear that Australia’s middle class is shrinking, and while the majority of those living in poverty are probably not becoming poorer in absolute terms, they are becoming more numerous. However, those in the bottom 5% of income earners in Australia have, in fact, become poorer over the past decade. Poverty in Australia today is complex and changing.

Overall, there is international evidence that neoliberal policies based on cutting welfare services and programs consistently lead to increased levels of poverty and inequality.

Conclusion

Australia faces real political choices in our approach to poverty. On the one hand, we can continue to go down the American path of lower taxation and lower minimum wages in the hope that this will facilitate higher employment for less skilled workers. This approach tends to narrowly examine the behavioural characteristics of the poor and the dynamics of the welfare system in isolation from the broader structures which create and entrench social and economic inequities. However, all the international evidence suggests that such policies run the risk of promoting vastly increased income inequality and working poverty.

On the other hand, we can consider the alternative policies favoured by many European countries based on progressive taxation, universal welfare, and higher real wages to promote greater egalitarianism, and reduced working poverty. These policies suggest at least some commitment to notions of collective rather than individual responsibility for poverty.

May 2009

Interrelated Dynamics of Health and Poverty in Australia

By Lixin Cai and Hielke Buddelmeyer

NATSEM Seminar series, Canberra

Single Sex Education is the new trend of the future. It is the new best thing for both boys and girls and in the last few years there has been a major increase in interest in single sex education schools. Boys’ and girls’ brains are set up differently so they should be taught differently in different environments. Single sex education is when there is either one whole school set up for only boys or only girls or it could be a classroom for only boys or girls. One issue is whether or not building public schools for just boys or just girls is unconstitutional. Does it violate Title IX? Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any educational program receiving federal funds (National Association of State Boards of Education).

March 3rd, 2004, the United States Department of Education published new regulations about single sec education in public schools. They will have to offer “substantially equal courses, services, and facilities, at other schools within the same school district but those other schools can be single sex or coded (Leonard Sax). As long as there is a school for each gender to go to whether is it coed or single sex it does not violate Title IX.

Sex differences in the brain begin in the womb. These sex hormones, transformed by aromatase enzymes within the brain, bind to brain tissue and begin to transform it. Between 18 and 26 weeks gestation, the developing brain is permanently and irreversibly transformed. When a woman is 26 weeks pregnant, you can distinguish a female brain from a male brain (Leonard Sax). Once those changes have occurred they are permanent. Nothing can change them even after you are out of the womb. Not even an experience as extreme as castration.

One research team recently compared brain tissue from the brains of young girls and young boys. They found that sex differences in the structure of the brain were obvious, even in babies. The differences in the brain tissue are so dramatic that they are even visible to the naked eye (Leonard Sax). This finding alone should alert you that sex differences are real as opposed to, say, racial or religious differences. You can’t tell by looking at a slice of someone’s brain whether that person was Black or White or Asian; you can’t tell whether that person was a Jew or a Christian or a Hindu or a Muslim. But you can tell whether that person was male or female.

Studies have shown that women and men process information, listen, read, and experience emotion in very different ways. Women use both the right and left hemispheres in processing language; men use only the left hemisphere. Men are more likely to use a small area of the brain, on just one side, for a particular task; women typically use more of the brain, on both hemispheres, for the same task. Women typically navigate using landmarks that can be seen or heard. Men are more likely to use abstract concepts such as north and south, or absolute distance.

Because males and females brains are set up so differently and they use different part when they are solving a problem. They should be put in two different learning environments so that each student can learn to the best of their potential.

Most of the studies comparing single-sex education with coeducation focus on grades and test scores. Girls in all-girls schools are more likely to study subjects such as advanced math, computer science, and physics. Boys in all-boys schools are more than twice as likely to study subjects such as foreign languages, art, music, and drama (Leonard Sax).

In June 2005, researchers at Cambridge University released results of a four-year study of gender differences in education. These researchers found that the single-sex classroom format was very effective at boosting boys’ performance particularly in English and foreign languages, as well as improving girls’ performance in math and science. (singlesexschools.org)

You’ll occasionally hear people claim that single-sex education is “good for girls, but not for boys.” In fact, recent research has demonstrated that single-gender classrooms benefit boys as well — particularly for subjects such as reading, writing, art, and music. The single greatest benefit of girls-only education is the greater educational opportunity girls enjoy in the all-girls classroom. At every age, girls in girls-only classroom are more likely to explore “non-traditional” subjects such as computer science, math, physics, woodworking, etc (Jost, Kenneth).

Single Sex Education is the educational trend of the future. It is the best new thing for both boys and girls. All students will be able to take whatever class they would like with out and added pressure to act “cool” for the opposite sex. Every child will be able to get an education to the best that they are able. In an environment set up just for them.

All girls will be able to go to shop class and no one will even think twice about it. Girls will be able to act more like themselves during schools because they will not have to put up a front for any guy. They will not have to dress up to go to school to impress anyone. They will just be there to learn and nothing more.

Boys will not have to worry about their girlfriend bothering them during school. They will be able to focus on just their education and nothing more. They will not be distracted by any low cut tops or short skirts. They will have nothing else to distract them or stop them from learning.

Every student will get a fair and equal chance at learning. There will be no gender stereotypes of any kind. Single Sex Education is just taking out one more distraction from learning. Making it a little bit easier to only have to worry about getting your work done and not whether or not you boyfriend or girlfriend is going to meet you at your locker after class.

The common coed classroom generally consists of an equal number of males and females. This has been true for as long as coed schooling has existed. The idea of trading in this norm for exclusively single sex classrooms is interesting to say the least. It is interesting because of the hidden elements associated with the issue. Exclusively separating classrooms by sex is an issue that must be approached carefully because while it may advance academic performance for some, it could as easily be detrimental to the academic performance of others.

Susan Estrich, an author and member of the Harvard Law Review, has written many works including an essay entitled “Separate is Better”, which is a collection of her views on why classrooms should be separated by gender. She asserts that in a coed environment women do not perform as well academically as in a single sex environment. Estrich believes that in dual-sex classrooms women are overlooked because “boys get the bulk of the teachers’ time” (388). Another reason she believes that women do not perform as well in dual-sex schools is because they are forced into gender roles; she believes that boys are able to take on more academic extra curricular activities while girls are forced into more physical activities such as twirling a baton or cheerleading. Estrich also states that in a coed environment women can feel intimidated, or have lower self confidence, causing them to be less likely to ask or answer questions aloud in class. Estrich clearly states in her essay, Separate is Better, that she believes separating classrooms by sex would lead to better performance throughout the education process by eliminating many of the problems she sees within the dual-sex education system (388-9).

One of the primary arguments used to justify the separation of genders in the classroom is that attention by the instructor is divided unequally, with the males receiving the majority; this however, does not seem to be true. Assuming of course that this argument is truthful and able to be proven, this would perhaps be a legitimate argument in the justification of such acts. If men receive more opportunities in education due to more attention, then we should change from the dual-sex system into a much more equitable system. I, however do not believe that there is any proof behind this argument. It seems to me that the majority of instructors divide their attention among the students fairly equally with no regard to gender. While I am sure that attention is not given equally to every individual in the classroom, I believe that the inequities are equally present among both males and females.

A separate argument for the separation of genders by schools deals with gender roles placed upon students of a coed school; these roles should apply to both males and females, but according to Estrich males are allowed to join any extra curricular activity they choose while women are forced into such activities as baton twirling and others of a lesser academic orientation. Similar to the argument concerning the division of attention, I also believe this argument is unjust. To say that a school should be separated into two separate single sex schools simply because females are supposedly forced into certain activities is preposterous. Truth be told, there is a problem with certain roles being forced upon students regardless of their sex. The corresponding male activity to baton twirling would be football or basketball or other physical sports. Alternative activities are offered in most schools including academic oriented clubs and organizations. The well-rounded student whether male or female, should be free to pursue both physically oriented and academically oriented passions. A single sex school is not necessary in my opinion to create an atmosphere where it is smart to do both. I believe that the rosters of virtually every school’s teams and organizations will provide evidence of this contention.

The final argument for the separation of schools by gender is the high level of self confidence felt by a graduate of an all-girls school versus the intimidation felt by women in a coed environment.. I find this argument to be much more viable than the previous two. Estrich claims that in her experiences at Wellesley, an all-girls school, proved to raise her self-esteem more than any other period in her life (389). I do not doubt that this is true because I agree that some women may indeed be intimidated by men in a classroom setting, thus causing them to hesitate to answer or ask a question for fear of appearing unintelligent or even ignorant. Not all women have this problem, however, and to take them out of a coed classroom would be overkill; the essence of education is to prepare the populace for a constructive and productive life as adults. For most of us this means interacting with and competing against both men and women for jobs and advancements. If a girl would benefit from a single sex environment to better prepare her for life in the adult world, then encourage her to choose that course. I do not believe that all girls would require such an environment. For those who do not have this problem then the idea of a coed classroom is the best option in order to achieve the highest rewards on an academic scale.

On the issue of separating schools or classrooms by gender I think everything should be widely considered before any rash decisions are made. While I do not agree with many of the arguments argued by Estrich in support of separate schools or classes, some of them seem to be well thought out and positive. My conclusion is that schools should not be exclusively gender separated but maybe high schools could begin offering single gender classes that students can elect to take if they think that it would help in their individual education process. That way students could try it out and if they like it they can continue on to a single sex college. The most important aspect of education is to learn and I believe that the environment where learning is best accomplished has to be made by the individual.

Do boys in the classroom hinder a girl’s learning process? Is she paying more attention to how her make-up looks than how to solve the next math problem? These are the types of questions raised in the debate between co-educational and single-sex schools. Attending both a co-educational and single-sex schools throughout my academic life, one can begin to see the differences and similarities between the two. There has long been a dilemma for parents over which type of education to chose for their child. In many ways, these two environments differ, but they are also similar in some ways.

Just because the population in co-educational school and single-sex schools is different, all schools practice a similar common curriculum. Whether you attend a co-educational school or a single-sex school, the quality of education stays pretty consistent throughout, depending on the specific school. Just because someone attends a single-sex school, their social life and participation in extra-curricular activities is very similar to that of co-educational schools. Even though an all-girls’ school might not have their own football team, they often pair up with all-boys’ school in order to participate through a brother school. Weekend and after-school activities remain constant whether someone attends a co-educational or single-sex school.

There are many extreme differences between the two types of schools. It has long been believed that girls can flourish in an all-girls environment because they don’t have to be self-conscious about answering questions in front of boys. The same thing goes for boys, who don’t feel the need to show off in order to impress all the girls. In single-sex schools, the students can feel more comfortable with themselves and more confident about their academic achievements. In some instances, single-sex education is seen as superior to co-educational schools because the students don’t have a change to worry about their appearances and they can concentrate more on their studies. In most single-sex schools uniforms are required, but even when they’re not, having a population of all one gender cuts down on the competition to see which girl or which guy has on the latest fashion. In single-sex environments, more focus is put on education and not on being popular with the opposite sex. One traditional difference that people think of between these two schools is the fact that most single-sex schools are private. Because most single-sex schools are private, they are also usually associated with some religious group. Another difference in a single-sex environment is the camaraderie one builds with his or her classmates. Spending every school day with a class of the same sex allows for a greater sense of bonding because everyone can share similar experiences, especially those that are specific to their gender. Using the cliche, “Boys will be boys,” when boys, as well as girls, are around a group of the same sex, they seem to be more relaxed and comfortable and able to talk about anything. Because groups of the same sex have so many personal, shared experiences that they can talk about freely with each other during school, stronger friendships are said to be forged in single-sex schools.

Most of the similarities and difference between these types of education stem from the stereotypes that are associated with each. Most of the similarities are social similarities, while most of the differences deal with education. The dilemma still exists in parents’ minds about which type of education will be the best for their child. Even though they should take the similarities and differences of each type of education into consideration, particular schools are different. While traditionally single-sex schools are seen as more beneficial because students can concentrate better, the similarities show that co-educational school also are advantageous to developing a student’s educational and social life.

The Bush Administration is considering opening more single sex schools and funds to make those institutions possible. Bush recently signed an education bill called “Leave No Child Behind (Toppo).” The new law allows school districts with single sex schools to compete for a small portion of $450 million for innovative programs. It also states that the school districts can receive federal dollars for single-sex schools and classes if comparable coursework and facilities are available to both genders. With single sex education a child is being left behind. It can be hard to understand why many organizations and individuals believe that single sex education is a good idea. Research on single sex education is open for much doubt, most of the research is inconclusive. Single sex schools might have more order than co-ed schools due to the fact that there would be no gender differences. There is no solid proof that single sex schools have a higher achievement rate than co-ed schools. More single sex schools are not the best move on the part of the Bush Administration and is a factor that needs to be reconsidered