Free Essays on Acrchtypal Theory

Tolkien’s Archetypal Hero(s) When J.R.R Tolkien published the first book in the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, in 1954 he broke ground and paved the way for fantasy all the way to the twenty-first century a century that still holds Tolkien’s works on a glorious pedestal that stands far and above those in his shadow. The complexity of Tolkien’s writing rules out a detailed overview of the entire hero’s quest through what is called †Middle Earth†. The essence of Tolkien’s trilogy can be found in this epitaph: Three rings for the Elven-kings under the sky, Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die, One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne, In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie, One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind Them In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie. In the prequel to the trilogy, The Hobbit, Bilbo Baggins finds the â€Å"ring to bind them.† He stole this ring from Smeagol who has carried the ring for 500 years; all the while, the dark power of the ring has transformed him from a hobbit into a creature of the dark who cannot bare the light. It is the â€Å"dark power† which is connected to Gollum that makes him a pivotal character through out the whole trilogy. In the ending of The Hobbit, Bilbo passes the ring onto his heir, Frodo. At the beginning of The Fellowship of the Rings, the first book in the trilogy, Frodo departs, accompanied by his friends: embarking on the journey to destroy the ring by casting it into the Crack of Doom in the land of Mordor as he promised Bilbo. The second half of this book, all of The Two Towers, the second book, and the first half of the final book, Return of the King, are the details of sub quests that need to be overcome to get to Mordor. In the climax of the trilogy the ring i s destroyed, freeing Frodo and his surviv... Free Essays on Acrchtypal Theory Free Essays on Acrchtypal Theory Tolkien’s Archetypal Hero(s) When J.R.R Tolkien published the first book in the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, in 1954 he broke ground and paved the way for fantasy all the way to the twenty-first century a century that still holds Tolkien’s works on a glorious pedestal that stands far and above those in his shadow. The complexity of Tolkien’s writing rules out a detailed overview of the entire hero’s quest through what is called †Middle Earth†. The essence of Tolkien’s trilogy can be found in this epitaph: Three rings for the Elven-kings under the sky, Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die, One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne, In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie, One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind Them In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie. In the prequel to the trilogy, The Hobbit, Bilbo Baggins finds the â€Å"ring to bind them.† He stole this ring from Smeagol who has carried the ring for 500 years; all the while, the dark power of the ring has transformed him from a hobbit into a creature of the dark who cannot bare the light. It is the â€Å"dark power† which is connected to Gollum that makes him a pivotal character through out the whole trilogy. In the ending of The Hobbit, Bilbo passes the ring onto his heir, Frodo. At the beginning of The Fellowship of the Rings, the first book in the trilogy, Frodo departs, accompanied by his friends: embarking on the journey to destroy the ring by casting it into the Crack of Doom in the land of Mordor as he promised Bilbo. The second half of this book, all of The Two Towers, the second book, and the first half of the final book, Return of the King, are the details of sub quests that need to be overcome to get to Mordor. In the climax of the trilogy the ring i s destroyed, freeing Frodo and his surviv...

Why Its Dangerous to Mix Bleach With Alcohol or Acetone

Why It's Dangerous to Mix Bleach With Alcohol or Acetone Mixing chemicals can be a bad idea, particularly if one of the chemicals is bleach. You may be aware household bleach gives off dangerous fumes when mixed with bases, such as ammonia, and acids, such as vinegar, but did you know its also risky to mix it with alcohol or acetone?  Bleach reacts with alcohol or acetone to form chloroform, a chemical that could knock you out and cause organ damage. Making Chloroform: The Haloform Reaction Chloroform is an example of a haloform (CHX3, where X is a halogen). Any of the halogens can participate in the reaction, except fluorine because its intermediate is too unstable. A methyl ketone (molecule with R-CO-CH3 group) is halogenated in the presence of a base. Acetone and alcohol are two examples of compounds that can participate in the reaction. The reaction is used industrially to produce chloroform, iodoform, and bromoform (although there are other reactions better for chloroform). Historically, its one of the oldest known organic reactions. Georges-Simon Serullas made iodoform in 1822 from reacting potassium metal in a solution of ethanol (grain alcohol) and water. Phosgene Many online sources mention the production of highly toxic phosgene (COCl2) from mixing bleach with alcohol or acetone. This is a chemical with practical applications, but may be best known as a deadly chemical weapon known to have an odor of musty hay. Mixing bleach with the other chemicals doesnt produce phosgene, however, chloroform breaks down into phosgene over time. Commercially available chloroform contains a stabilizing agent to prevent this degradation, plus it is stored in dark amber bottles to reduce exposure to light, which can hasten the reaction. How Mixing Could Occur While you wouldnt put bleach in a mixed drink, you might use it to clean up a spill or use it in a cleaning project with alcohol-containing glass cleaner. Acetone is found in pure form and in some nail polish removers. The bottom line: Avoid mixing bleach with anything except water. Chloroform can also result from disinfection of water using bleach. If the water contains high enough levels of reactive impurities, haloform and other carcinogenic chemicals may be produced. What Should I Do If I Mix Them? Chloroform has a sweet smell, very unlike that of bleach. If you mix bleach with another chemical and suspect a nasty fume was produced, you should: Open a window or otherwise air out the area. Avoid breathing in the gas.Leave at once until the vapor has had time to dissipate. If you feel faint or sick, be sure  another person is aware of the situation.Make certain children, pets, and other household members avoid the area until youre sure its okay. Usually, the concentration of chemicals is low enough that the amount of toxic chemical is low. However, if youre using reagent grade chemicals, like for a lab experiment to intentionally make chloroform, exposure warrants emergency medical attention. Chloroform is a central nervous system depressant. Exposure can knock you out, while high doses can lead to coma and death. Remove yourself from the area to avoid additional exposure! Also, please keep in mind that chloroform is known to induce tumors in rats and mice. Even low exposure isnt healthy. Chloroform: Fun Fact In books and movies, criminals use chloroform-soaked rags to knock out their victims. While chloroform has been used in some real-life crimes, its actually almost impossible to knock someone out with it. About five minutes of constant inhalation is needed to cause unconsciousness.

European Union Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words - 2

European Union Law - Essay Example The French authorities wish to deport Derek and his family back to the Britain. Here it will be important to consider the rights of the European Union citizens though before doing that it is perhaps important to consider whether the actions complained of by the French authorities are legally objectionable, or otherwise. Does Derek or his family have the right to stay Is their right independent of each other's Are Derek and his wife to be considered as "workers" Naturally, it is the European Court of Justice (the ICJ) that has severally been called upon to apply its wisdom in cases where a party suspects that his rights have been violated, and those instances will no doubt be crucial in gauging the status of Derek and his family. It may be wise to recite the relevant the full provision here in order to be seized of its full implications. Thus Article 39EC of the Nice treaty provides;2 2.. 1. Freedom of movement for workers shall be secured within the Community. 2.. Such freedom of movement shall entail the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment. 3. It shall entail the right, subject to limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health: (a)to accept offers of employment actually made; (b) to move freely within the territory of Member States for this purpose; (c) to stay in a Member State for the purpose of employment in accordance with the provisions governing the employment of nationals of that State laid down by law, regulation or administrative action; (d) to remain in the territory of a Member State after having been employed in that State, subject to conditions which shall be embodied in implementing regulations to be drawn up by the Commission. A worker has been defined in the case of Lawrie-Blum V. Land Baden Wurttemberg as a person who for a time performs services for, or under a direction of another person, and receives remuneration in return.3 The ICJ has had to deal with cases where the rights of a migrant were considered. In the instant case, Hartley thinks that Article 39 on the freedom of movement of migrants is restricted in this aspect. A migrant has the right to cross borders once the offer is made before he leaves his country of origin, and as such, such migrant has no right to go to a member country to look for work4. This is premised on the fact that the Article 39 (3) (a) talks of "accepting offers of employment actually made." Thus I my advice to Derek is that his legal position as a migrant is already tenuous as he went to France to look for work. So unfortunately for Derek and his family, French authorities already have some legal ammunition they can use to deport the head of the family. For, Derek, the re prieve could come from a declaration made by the member states and recorded in the minutes meeting way back in 1968 that such migrants who crossed borders into other community member states could be allowed to stay for three months and if they have not been

TORT Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2250 words

TORT - Essay Example Nevertheless, in Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co ([1970] AC 1004 (HL) it was suggested that Lord Atkin’s rationale remained applicable unless the specific circumstances merited exclusion of the dictum. As a result, commentators argued that the pendulum had swung too far in favour of claimants, which was reinforced by the decision pertaining to proximity in terms of who the duty of care was owed to in Anns v Merton LBC ([1972 2 All ER 492). The decision in of Anns v Merton London Borough ([1978] A.C. 728) asserted that the proximity test relies on a consideration of the nature of the relationship between the parties and Lord Wilberforce asserted that: â€Å"in order to establish that a duty of care arises in a particular situation... the question has to be approached in two stages. First one has to ask whether, as between the alleged wrongdoer and the person who has suffered damage there is a sufficient relationship of proximity ... such that in the reasonable contemplation of t he former, carelessness on his part may be likely to cause damage to the latter- in which case a prima facie duty of care arises†. However, subsequent decisions have struggled with this and in practice the courts have sought to water down the ramifications of Lord Wilberforce’s dictum in Anns v Merton as highlighted by the decisions in Peabody Donation Fund v Sir Lindsay Parkinson ([1984] 3 All ER 529) and Yuen Kun-yeu v AG of Hong Kong ([1987] 2 All ER 705). Moreover, in Rowling v Takaro Properties ([1988] 1 All ER 163) Lord Keith highlighted the point that a literal application of the judicial rationale in Anns v Merton could risk courts not taking into account all relevant factual considerations when evaluating whether or not to impose a duty of care. This line of thinking was reinforced by Lord Templeman’s dictum in CBS Sons v Amstrad ([1988] 2 All ER 484) which suggested that the decision in Anns undermined the purpose of negligence liability and risked open ing the floodgates of claims. In highlighting the implications of Lord Wilberforce’s test in Anns, Lord Templeman commented that Anns: â€Å"put the floodgates on the jar, a fashionable plaintiff alleges negligence.† Whilst the post Anns decisions clearly tried to avoid the literal implications of the Wilberforce test, the duty of care test was clarified by the decision in the case of Caparo Industries v Dickman ([1990] 1 All ER 568). In Caparo v Dickman ([1990]1 ALL ER 568), the House of Lords confirmed the following three stage test to determine whether a duty of care exists: 1) Whether the consequence of the defendant’s actions were reasonably foreseeable; 2) Whether there was sufficient proximity to impose a duty of care; and 3) Whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care. Moreover, Lord Bridge focused on the interrelationship between foreseeability and proximity elements for the existence of duty of care. To this end, Lord Bridge commen ted that â€Å"necessary ingredients in any situation giving rise to a duty of care are that there should exist between the party owing the duty and the party to whom it is owed a relationship characterised by the law

Feminist Sociological Study And Gender Inequality Sociology Essay

Feminist Sociological Study And Gender Inequality Sociology Essay The feminist perspective is the political stance of someone committed to changing the social position of women to bring about gender equality (Pilcher and Whelehan, 2004), whilst gender is described as the characteristics taken on by males and females in social life and culture through socialisation. Gender is a process and not a permanent state, implying that gender is being produced and reproduced, whereas inequality refers to the unequal rewards or opportunities for different individuals or groups within a society (Wharton, 2005). This essay will define how the feminist perspective has influenced the sociological study of gender inequality. It will summarise how the three founding fathers of sociology viewed mens oppression and womens subordination and discuss how earlier feminists viewed their counterparts attitudes. In the late 19th and early 20th century sociology remained a male dominated discipline with the classical theorists Marx, Durkheim and Weber. This was surprising due to the fact that the pre-existing patterns of gender inequality brought about modernisation. Womens labour contributed vastly to industrial capitalism. Although the classical theorists had literature and theories of contemporary feminist movements they never addressed the gendered process of modernisation, they saw women in more traditional roles within the family (Bilton et al, 2002). According to Giddens (2009) Marx viewed gender differences in power and status between men and women in the divisions of class. Gender inequality only appeared when industrial capitalism was formed; men went out to work and controlled the family income and the women stayed at home doing the housework whilst looking after the children. Fulcher and Scott (2003) noted that Marx viewed womens oppression as serving the capitalists society. Durkheim (1897 cited in Simpson 1952) viewed gender inequality as entrenched in society. In his discussion of suicide, Durkheim stated that men are a product of society while women are a product of nature. Durkheim suggested that women and men have different identities because women are less socialised then men. Likewise, Giddens (2009:91) stated Womens social position and identity are mainly shaped by their involvement in reproduction and childrearing. Durkheim (1897 cited in Simpson 1952) argued that women bear and rare children whereas men are active in the public spheres of politics and work. Yet, today feminists would argue that women are shaped as much as men through socialisation. Waters (1994) pointed out that Webers theory on gender inequality is confined to a system of organisational domination rather than power. Weber used the word patriarchalism rather than patriarchy to describe his category of traditional domination, where a person in authority inherits a particular status at birth. Weber indicated that the power of the man in the household is unimpeded and that women and children are his property. Women, Weber (cited in Roth, G. Wittich, C. 1968:1007) argued, are dependent because of the normal superiority of the physical and intellectual energies of the male. According to Waters (1994) Weber viewed the status of women and children under patriarchalism as similar to slaves in that they are capable of being bought, sold and rented. The first wave of feminism coincided with the classical theorists Marx, Durkheim and Weber. Giddens (2009) highlighted the fact that from 1800 to 2000 there had only been five feminist sociologists: Harriet Martineau 1802-76, Simone de Beauvoir 1908-86, Betty Friedan 1921-2006, Judith Butler 1956 and Vandana Shiva 1952. Martineau, the earliest sociologist and feminist was famous for introducing sociology to Britain through her transcript of Comtes thesis of sociology. In Giddens (2009) Martineau argued that if a society is to be studied, sociologists must focus on political, religious and social institutions. Secondly, that a society must include an understanding of womens lives. Thirdly, issues of marriage, children and domestic life should be left unchallenged and that sociologists must do more than view but act in ways to benefit society. Erstwhile influential figures of first wave feminism were Mary Wollstonecraft, Harriet Taylor Mill and her husband John Stuart Mill. Wollstonecraft (1792 cited in Abbott and Wallace, 1990:191) emphasised that inequalities between men and women were not the outcome of natural (biological) differences but due to the influence of the environment, and especially the fact that women were excluded from education. Wollstonecraft argued that it was essential to educate women and change society so women and men were seen as equal (Abbott et al, 2005). In Harriets essay, The Enfranchisement of Women 1851, published under her husbands name she campaigned that women should be given equal rights to the same jobs as men and that women should not live in separate spheres. Harriets views were seen as more radical than that of Johns however, they both argued in their book The Subjection of Women 1869 that women should have the same rights as men under law (Mill 1851, 1869 cited in Abbott, Wallace, 1990). The suffragettes and other campaigners of the 19th and 20th century campaigned for change. In 1839 women won the right to custody of an infant child, in 1882 the right to own their own property, in 1918 the right to vote and in 1934 they won the right to divorce on the same grounds as men. The 19th and 20th century feminism was all on the subject of change and having the same legal rights as men. Although women did not achieve equality with men in the 19th or early 20th century, most rights had been won. This first wave of feminism saw social change and therefore sociologists could no longer ignore gender inequality (Abbott, Wallace, 1990). Whilst the feminist theories had developed independently to sociology, the study of gender in sociology came from the second wave of the womens movement. Academic subjects like sociology appeared to ignore women. Women were rarely the subjects of research, and activities dominated by women such as house work and childcare received little interest. Oakley (1972) criticised sociology for generating knowledge more to do with mens lives rather than womens. At the time sociology was expressed in a quote by sociologist Jessie Bernard (1973 cited in Wharton, 2005:4) Can sociology become a science of society rather than a science of a male society? According to Waters (1994) feminist sociologists used the expression malestream to illustrate the mainstream discipline of sociology. Feminists implied that sociology was blind to gender and that it viewed gender difference and male oppression as symbolic, thus, sociological explanation was not needed. Giddens (2001) pointed to the fact that feminism and the womens movements had forced fundamental changes in sociology. Feminists argued that men and women had different experiences and viewed the world differently they did not build their understandings in equal ways. According to Waters (1994) womens experiences are intentionally ignored and the ways in which men dominate women is seen as natural. Additionally, when women were included in research, they were presented from a male perspective. Oakley (1972) suggested sociology had been biased from the beginning. Sociology was predominately a male profession and the principles of gender resulted in assumptions about differences between males and females. She argued that despite the criticism of the discipline for its malestream views little has changed over the years. Although women are studying the subject, the majority of lecturers are male. According to Abbott Wallace (1990) there has been some change in that sociologists can no longer afford to ignore the feminist perspective and there has been converse about the changes needed for male bias in sociology to be overcome. It has been noted that gender is a generally formed perception which contributes differing social roles and identities to males and females. According to Giddens (2009) gender differences are rarely neutral and that gender is a significant form of social stratification. Giddens (2009: 614) emphasised that gender is a critical factor in structuring types of opportunity and life chances faced by individuals and groups, and strongly influences the roles they play within social institutions from the household to the state. Fulcher and Scott (2003) stated that for many feminists, social stratification has been seen as entrenched in relations of sexual power that are built around natural differences of sex. Similarly, Giddens (2009) stressed that even though men and womens roles vary from society to society, there is no known society in which women are more dominant than men. Mens roles are usually highly rewarded and valued more than womens. Firestone (1971) argued that societies are sepa rated into opposed sex classes and that all men oppress all women, thus the struggle between men and women is the driving force in human history. Although women have made a number of advances around the globe, gender differences serve the foundation for gender inequality. There are many academic perspectives relating to gender inequality and how men dominate women in the public and private sphere (Giddens, 2009). The functionalist theory searches to show that gender differentiation contribute to social stability and integration. According to Waters (1994) Parsons and Murdoch studied the family in industrial societies and how children were socialised. They noted that the stability of the family contributed to successful socialisation. Parsons argued that the family operated more efficiently were women acted in an expressive role, caring for the children and offering them emotional support. Whereas the men performed better in an active role by going out and earning money for the family, Murdoch added that males and females are best suited to the roles they are biologically determined to perform. According to Giddens (2009) Femin ists argued that women are not prevented from occupations on the basis of biological features, they suggested humans are socialised into roles that are culturally expected of them and there is nothing natural about the distribution of tasks in society. Liberal feminists looked for explanations of gender inequality in social and cultural attitudes. They also fought for the equal rights of women through democratic means (Waters, 1994). The Liberal theory came to light with the suffragist movement in the early 20th century and fought against laws that gave rights to men and not women. They campaigned to pass laws to outlaw discrimination against women and to give women rights in the workplace, educational institutes and the media. Abbott et al (2005) criticised liberal feminists of not dealing with core issues of gender inequality, they do not acknowledge the nature of womens oppression. According to Bilton et al (2002) radical feminists alleged that men had an interest in controlling women through various tactics, including rape, genital mutilation, domestic violence and sexual harassment. The violence that women were exploited to showed a source of male supremacy. Giddens (2009) noted that radical feminists concentrated on the family home as one of the primary areas of womens oppression. Radical feminists argued that men exploited women by relying on unpaid domestic labour. Firestone (1971 cited in Giddens, 2009:617) expressed that ..because women are biologically able to give birth to children, they become dependent materially on men for protection and livelihood. Radical feminists argued that men see women as sexual objects whose main purpose is to entertain and please them. Additionally, radical feminists see patriarchy as a phenomenon. They suggest gender equality can only be gained by overthrowing the Patriarchal order. Marxist and socialist feminists argued that womens oppression was a symptom of capitalism rather than patriarchy. Like radical feminists, Marx feminists argued that the household was the location of womens oppression arising from the fact that women took part in unpaid work in the private sphere, that is, caring for the labour force and raising the next generation of workers to benefit the capitalists at no cost to them (Bilton et al, 2002). However, Marx had little to do with gender inequality, according to Giddens (2009) it was Engels who did more than Marxs in relation to gender inequality. Engels did so through the Marxist perspective. Engels (in Giddens, 2009) argued capitalism strengthens patriarchy by putting wealth in the hands of capitalists which underpins womens subordination to men. Both Marxist and radical feminists saw how capitalism effected gender relations in both the public and private spheres. They wanted to see a restructuring of the family and an end to domestic slavery, however Marx argued this would only be achieved through a revolutionary change. hooks (1981 cited in Haralambos Holborn, 2008) criticised white feminists of failing to acknowledge how race and racism impacts on womens experiences. She argued that white feminist theories of oppression applied to all women; therefore this institutionalised racism. Giddens (2009) pointed out that although black feminists stood next to their suffragette counterparts for womens rights they realised race could not be ignored. Black women were at a disadvantage on the basis of their colour, race, gender and class position. Black feminists concluded that if gender equality is to prevail then racism needed to be addressed in mainstream feminism. Post-modern feminism came about in the 1980s and challenged the definition of modern feminism. Post-modern feminists argued that woman is a debatable category, complicated by issues of class, ethnicity, sexuality and other facets of identity. They rejected the claim that there is a grand theory that can explain the position of women in a society because each society has complex social relations and women do not actually have a fixed identity. Post-modern feminists accept that there are many different points of view that are all equally valid (Marsh and Keating, 2006). Characteristics of Masculinity and femininity differ from one society to another, not only do the characteristics differ but so do the sexual activities in which people engage. Connell (1995 cited in Macionis Plummer, 2008: 366) described this as part of a gender order in which societies shape notions of masculinity and femininity into power relationships. Connell argued that femininity and masculinity were arranged around hegemonic masculinity and suggested that men produced and maintained gender inequality. According to Giddens (2001) Connell used pragmatic data on gender inequality to show how women were kept in subordinate positions to men. Connell categorised societys gender order into three facets: labour that referred to the sexual divisions of labour in the home and place of work, power that referred to domestic violence within the home and cathexis which related to the mechanics within emotional sexual relationships. According to the Office for National Statistics (2010) the pay gap for full-time employees in 2009 is down from 12.2% to 10.2%. For women, full-time earnings increased more across the bottom 10% of the distribution with a growth of 1.8% compared to 0.8% for their male counterparts. Similarly, the hourly earnings of the top 10% women went up by 2.1% compared to the 0.8% for men. In addition, the Office for National Statistics (2008) noted that in 2007/08 women were five times more likely to suffer from domestic violence than men, this accounted for 85% of women compared to 15% of men. Up until 1970, crime and deviance like other areas of sociology had ignored women. Sociologist, Carol Smart (1979 cited in Haralambos Horn 2008) criticised criminology for being male dominated and sexist. She argued that because women committed fewer and less insignificant crimes then men, women were undeserving of research. The Office for National Statistics (2008) reported that in 2006 males where more than likely to be found guilty of crime than women. In England and Wales between 82% and 94% of males were found guilty of a violent crime and 97% of males were found guilty of sexual offences. Criminologist Otis Pollock (1950 cited in Haralambos Horn 2008) claimed that women were more deviant then men. He argued that statistics on crime and gender were deceptive and that certain crimes women committed were likely to go unreported. Firstly, Pollock stated that the police and magistrates tended to be men and were chivalrous. Secondly, women were clever in hiding their crimes; Pollock linked this to female biology. Thirdly, Pollock saw womens domestic role as an opportunity to commit crime in the private sphere and that this type of crime went undetected. Although, Pollocks theories have been heavily criticised by other criminologist, his critics do give him creditability for being the first to say statistics did underrate female criminality. In summary, it is evident that in the 19th century men dominated society, early sociological theories ignored gender issues in particular women. Feminists such as Martineau fought against these sexiest ideologies arguing that malestream research did not relate to the lives of women or indeed their concerns. Feminists stressed that society could not be fully understood without taking women into consideration. The first wave of feminism was all about how men viewed and marginalised women and equal rights. As feminism developed in sociology, individual theories formed within feminism thinking. These theories highlighted and explained how women viewed gender inequality and how men oppressed women in the public and private sphere. Feminists believed that developing such theories would help them understand their subordination and help liberate themselves from mens control. Feminism has also helped sociologists understand how masculinity and femininity is arranged around the dominance of men and how the power relations of gender order keep women in subordinate positions within the home and at work. Whilst the feminist perspective has influenced the study of gender inequality by obtaining the same civil rights as men, acquiring rights in the workplace, the home and in politics. Some feminists still argue that there needs to be a total rethinking of sociological theory around the issues of women, although some progress has been made. It would appear that women still have a considerable way to go in closing the gendering gap and having the same equal opportunities as men. Yet, it remains to be seen if women will ever break through the glass ceiling and reach the top of the social mobility ladder or earn the same wage as men in high flying positions.

From her arrival in 1568, Mary Stuart posed a major threat to the security of Elizabeth and her government

Mary's arrival in England triggered the discontent among some Catholic sympathisers to become prevalent, as Mary provided a clear leader to focus their religious dissatisfactions with the moderately Protestant settlement imposed by Elizabeth. This is why religious motivations behind some of the laity were the most dangerous threat from Mary. Political advantages from individuals supporting Mary are contributory factors to threaten Elizabeth, without the laity's religious motivations however they cannot amount to a crucial significance. International implications from Mary's presence were potentially huge but were never anything more than potential. All these factors revolving around Mary that threatened Elizabeth were compounded by the way Elizabeth mismanaged situations. Mary can be seen as the reaction pathway in the threat towards Elizabeth, she does not do much herself to endanger Elizabeth, however she provided the discontented with the motivation to threaten Elizabeth because she was the next Catholic heir. Those who felt discontented about Elizabeth's moderate Protestant settlement now had a clear leader to focus their ambitions of a Catholic England. The Northern Rebellion is a prime example of this religious discontent of many of the laity being focused on releasing Mary to restore Catholicism to England (5600/6000 were individuals not tenants of the landowners who would have been forced into fighting). The reason why this is the paramount threat to Elizabeth is because of the number of people who had grievances against the religion and saw Mary Stuart as the way to gain their religion back. Tied into this is the political danger of those Nobles who also had Catholic sympathies but were also in a position to challenge Elizabeth i. e. he Duke of Norfolk who was under demands from Mary Stuart to gain her release from prison by force if needed. Mary was always going to be the main centre of Catholic plots against Elizabeth because she was the heir to the throne. Catholic dissatisfactions were already present before her arrival but were compounded and given direction with her arrival. Therefore Mary can be seen as the instigator behind the Catholic threat to Elizabeth. This is shown by the fact that until 1568 Elizabeth was relatively free from Catholic threats, however with the arrival of Mary Stuart the question of Elizabeth's successor arisen and the Catholic plots began. Moreover with a Catholic heir to the throne available to the Catholics in England then Elizabeth's life was under increased threat. This is because the extreme Catholics were undoubtedly prepared to kill Elizabeth, their Queen, to gain their religion. After all their route to heaven or hell was controlled by Elizabeth and if she got it wrong then they would not gain salvation. This personal threat to Elizabeth is shown by the St Bartholomew's Day massacre, where French Catholics killed their Protestant King in the name of their religion. This threat is also emphasised by the assassination of William of Orange by Dutch Catholics. Mary behaves like a catalyst in the Catholic threat to Elizabeth, without her the plots that surrounded her would have no meaning because there is nobody to restore Catholicism for them. However as Mary was in England then repeats of what had happened in France and Spain to Protestant leaders similar to Elizabeth could also happen. Politically Mary Stuart provides an alternative for those Nobles who were not content with their position under Elizabeth. Nobles who were isolated from power under Elizabeth may see supporting Mary Stuart as a way to gain power in court or getting back positions that they had deprived under Elizabeth. Example of these nobles includes the Earl of Northumberland who under Elizabeth had his wardship of the Middlemarch deprived. This plan by Elizabeth to decrease the power of the magnates in the North had loosened the allegiance between Elizabeth and nobles such as Northumberland to such an extent that they saw taking a risk on Mary Stuart as being more advantageous than serving under Elizabeth an having their power and prestige slowly eaten away. Once again Mary has not done anything herself to threaten Elizabeth but inversely her position as heir to the throne has attracted supporters who are willing to threaten Elizabeth, therefore Mary is the main pathway for Catholic threats. Tied in with the threats from isolated Nobles were the threats from within Elizabeth's court involving Mary Stuart, which were also very dangerous to Elizabeth. The main court intrigue was the proposed marriage between the Duke of Norfolk and Mary Stuart. This faction came to be mainly because of the fact that they wanted Elizabeth to name Mary as her heir. However this faction contained many powerful Nobles, who it seemed were plotting against Elizabeth around Mary. International threats revolving around Mary Stuart were potentially huge, especially from Spain who at that time were the major Catholic leaders in Europe. In theory it would be thought that Spain would want to support Mary Stuart onto the English throne because of her Catholicism. However because Mary Stuart was in the Guise family who controlled France and Scotland, then Spain would rather not have France effectively controlling England as well. Despite the disadvantages of Spain supporting Mary Stuart there are still examples of how Mary Stuart's presence in England gave rise to danger to the security of Elizabeth's throne from Spainish involvement, nor could Elizabeth ignore this potentially massive threat. For example the Ridolfi Plot which once again aimed to secure Mary's release and position on the English throne also included military assistance from Spain, however the plot was discovered and the troops did not come. Although the military did not come form Spain, Mary Stuart's qualities as a ruler i. e. she is Catholic, once again means that these international threats are going to see her as a means to weaken Elizabeth if not to replace her altogether. Foreign involvement centring around Elizabeth also came from France, after all Mary was half-French and therefore a clear motivation for France can be seen to control England as well. This is shown by the Throckmorton plot were the Duke of Guise was planning to lead an army to depose Elizabeth and place Mary on the throne. Although it failed it shows that Mary was the link between almost all the people who felt unhappy with Elizabeth's reign from the English laity in the North to some of the French Catholics. She united people who felt frustrated with Elizabeth's reign and those who saw advantages from supporting Mary. The security of Elizabeth's throne is definitely challenged here, although it does not go ahead, it is warning of what can happen, and foreign involvement from the leading two Catholic powers in Europe, i. e. Spain and France in supporting Mary Stuart cannot be taken lightly. Elizabeth's mismanagement of situations that may have deflated the threats aimed towards her centring around Mary Stuart made them worse. Politically Elizabeth tried to reduce the power of the magnates in the North by setting up councils. This alienated Nobles such as Northumberland from power and therefore distanced the Noble's allegiance to Elizabeth. This is a major factor in why the Revolt of the Northern Earls took place. This would not have been such a problem if not for the fact that Mary Stuart was present in England. She gave the isolated Nobles a chance to avenge their disfavour from Elizabeth. Elizabeth can also be identified in mismanaging the religious settlement to make some Catholics discontented enough to support Mary, a French women, over their own English Queen. To drive 5400 individuals to a point where they felt they had to rebel in the Northern Rebellion must have been down to something Elizabeth did. For example Elizabeth introduced the use of the Protestant prayer Book. Therefore Elizabeth created support for Mary Stuart with her own actions. This increases Mary's threat and shows that the security of Elizabeth's throne was intensified by some actions taken by Elizabeth. Elizabeth also hampered the security of her own throne by not taking the opportunities to subdue the threat from Mary. This could have easily been done by naming Mary Stuart as her heir, this would have pleased a lot of people and had a lot to commend itself. Including the fact that the Catholic threat, the main threat centring around Mary, would have decreased significantly because they would have been most likely been content with knowing that the next Monarch of England was going to restore Catholicism. However instead Elizabeth hesitated and refused to make her decision by ignoring the subject. For example during the court intrigue she refused to name her heir under significant pressure from her court. Once again Elizabeth has intensified the threat orbiting around Mary, not taking the opportunities to relieve the pressure that Mary is placing on the security of Elizabeth's throne. Mary Stuart's threat to Elizabeth not only came from the fact that she was the Catholic heir but she did have tremendous political skill and personal magnetism. This is clear to see from the way she manipulated the Duke of Norfolk into trying to secure her release. For example before the Northern Rebellion when Mary met Norfolk and she old him to get her released by force if necessary and Norfolk undoubtedly did what he was told and was involved in a number of plots to release Mary. Cecil knew about Mary's personal danger an tried to persuade Elizabeth to have her executed much earlier than she was, however Elizabeth refused, this is another example of how Elizabeth's indecision over crucial matters failed to remove the danger of Mary Stuart and is clearly linked to her mismanagement of matters as shown above. Mary Stuart's arrival in England was the instigator in many of the plots against Elizabeth. She was the turning point in the security of Elizabeth's throne, from being relatively calm pre 1568, to continuous strain on Elizabeth's throne after 1568. Mary herself was not the actual threat to Elizabeth, but she was the motivation for them. Most significantly religious threats orbiting around the fact that Mary was Catholic and placing Mary on the throne were paramount compared to all other motivations. Political factors were contributory to religion and international threats were conceivable but never got off the ground. However Mary's overall threat could have been reduced by Elizabeth but of her mismanagement. Nobody troubled Elizabeth more than Mary Stuart in her reign due to the fact that she was the Catholic heir and therefore Catholics who felt religiously dissatisfied were prompted to threaten Elizabeth.

Analysis On Spanish And American Culture - 1771 Words

Living in a foreign country is an experience that not many people live. Some of them because they don’t have the chance, some of them because they are not adventurous enough to say yes and do it. Being an exchange student allows you to get to know a different country, to get surprised by some of the traditions and habits in your new home, and also, to analyze your old customs and your country’s traditions. This paper is an analysis on Spanish and American culture, traditions and habits, and talks about life in each one of these two important countries, separated by five thousand three hundred kilometers. This paper will make the reader realize how two countries separated by that many kilometers of land and ocean can have that many similar†¦show more content†¦However, the hope of building a new life wasn’t the only reason why Europeans crossed the Atlantic, ambitious countries like Spain wanted to colonize the new land, in order to increase their wealth. Spanish explorers took to the sea to claim new colonies for Spain. Known as conquistadores, they conquered much of the Americas. (Danzer, Gerald A. The Americans. Student text. Evanstan: McDougal Littel, 2005.). Spanish explorers lived among the Native Americans, and built several missions in the south and west of the US, were they taught Native Americans their culture and language, not always in the friendliest way, as they abused Native Americans physically, and punished them if they didn’t obey them. This oppression behavior led to several uprisings against the Spanish, ending with the victory of the Native Americans. In spite of this, Spanish culture had already spread along the south and the west of the US, and still remains on the continent, irrevocably linking the two cultures. But this link is still not strong enough to overcome the time that has elapsed since Spanish and Native Americans shared the same land, and that’s why the two cultures still have some di fferences. One of the aspects that most impacted in Europe and in America after Columbus’ discovery was the