Tuesday, January 28, 2020

Gender Roles in United States Essay Example for Free

Gender Roles in United States Essay Gender role can be defined as number of professed personality trait and manners observed by males or females in a given society.   Different culture imposes a different set of expectations on men and women (faqs, n.d). Every culture has a different number of norms that they use to differentiate a perfect male or female with an imperfect one. Who sets these gender roles? What if one is unable to be the perfect male / female? Is it right to restrict people to grow out of the perceived roles into something that is entirely opposite? Why is it assumed that a female will stay home to cook and clean while a man will be the sole bread earner of the house? An extensive debate has been going on for years regarding this topic. Looking around us a commercial selling razor blade will show a man who is rugged and well built and in a shampoo commercial will have a female who couldn’t be any prettier yet she still does the normal things in life. A magazine will always cover a top model and not a housewife. Why does media always shows beautiful, perfect physique females and tall, handsome men, be it an advertisement of food product or a house or any cars? Though over the years, people are being acceptable towards deviation in gender roles. Men and women are working together to understand and adjust to the shift occurring in gender roles Women work hand in hand with men to support living, media shows program covering normal people from the streets and both genders of a family are involved in taking major decisions. This change will defiantly result in better environment at workplaces, better atmosphere at homes, better standards of living for the young generation and an air of equality will amongst the upcoming generation. References Faqs. â€Å"Gender Roles† (Internet), www.faqs.org (Accessed on January 11, 2009)   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   http://www.faqs.org/health/topics/8/Gender-roles.html

Monday, January 20, 2020

Essay --

Not one single theory or school of thought embraces every view of human crisis or all the models or systems of crisis intervention (Janosik, 1984). An interview, directed by the student, provides a short-term overview of the interviewee’s viewpoints relevant to crisis planning and intervention. As an counseling in preparation I decided to interview Mrs. Tosha Wearing. She is a guidance counselor at Green Sea Head Start School in Green Sea, South Carolina. She administers the Green Sea School Counseling Program, which is designed to be comprehensive and developmental, with an emphasis on prevention. This includes large group guidance, small group and individual counseling, and consultation with staff, parents and community. Mrs. Wearing is a trained professional with a Masters' in Guidance and Counseling. She provides activities to enhance students' academic progress by addressing issues such as conflict resolution, interpersonal relationships, study skills, and self-esteem. Sh e also teaches the skills needed for coping in our fast-paced and ever-changing world. As the interview was being conducted, the school’s crisis manual was on hand and occasionally referred to once needed. Green Sea Head Start crisis team involves of several knowledgeable staff members and teachers. Precisely, the team is represented by administrators (head and assistant), the school guidance counselor, school psychologist and social worker, and every age level team leader. Mrs. Wearing clearly explained that the team works collected as a consistent unit to join and be a direct link out to the rest of the school. She also defined the crisis team as a problem-solving entity among the school. Consequently, there were no different symptoms that each member has a... ... safety and security measures being taken. A systematic procedure for dealing with a crisis, of any magnitude, should be established and should ensure all personnel have a clear understanding about every detail; including the who, the what, the when, and follow-up actions. The interview the learner conducted with the Counslor of Green Sea Head Start School served as an opportunity to discuss specific aspects of the school crisis plan. Furthermore, the learner gained information about the crisis team and the strengths and weaknesses of the current crisis plan. Overall, although no one crisis plan will guarantee that tragedies won’t take place, but a developed approach holds promise that the situation will be handled in the most cooperative way imagined. No school should be without a crisis plan and a well-trained crisis response team (James, 2013).

Sunday, January 12, 2020

Mahatma Gandhi Essay

In 1978, James McGregor Burns wrote about the dearth of leadership. â€Å"One of the most universal cravings of our time is a hunger for compelling and creative leadership.† McGregor Burns’ search for â€Å"moral leadership† reveals the tragedy of leadership studies- the confusion of leadership with power. Traditionally, leaders have been defined as those who hold power; allowing presidents, prime ministers and military generals, regardless of their accomplishments, to be considered leaders. Leadership studies have been further detracted from â€Å"moral leadership† because of the confusion of leadership with management. John D. Rockefeller, Henry Ford, and Bill Gates are considered leaders for the economic power they amassed. The confusion of leadership with power and leadership with management has led to a model of leadership that is Machiavellian (manipulative), hierarchical, authoritative, impersonal, elitist, and self-interested. The person I believe to be the greatest leader of the twentieth century exhibited none of the qualities named above. This person held no official political title; he commanded no army and he amassed no great wealth. He did, however, have tremendous influence. This truly exemplary leader derived his power from the conscious citizenry. The leader I am referring to is Mahatma Gandhi. Instrumental in the Indian Independence movement, Gandhi’s influence extended beyond the borders of India to the rest of the world. Gandhi’s philosophy of non-violence inspired millions, including the great American civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. A simple, pious man, Gandhi identified with and won the hearts of India’s most politically and economically marginalized people. He spent his life fighting to overcome modern forms of enslavement and oppression- caste oppression, religious hatred, gender oppression, and, what he saw as the worst form of violence, poverty. The purpose of this essay is to outline Gandhi’s philosophy of non-violence and it’s influence worldwide as well as the strategies and characteristics that made Gandhi successful. Gandhi’s philosophy of non-violence involved civil resistance, refusal to comply with unjust laws. He developed this philosophy while living and practicing law in South Africa. Organizing resistance to the notorious and grossly unjust apartheid system, which provoked significant legislative change, Gandhi left an indelible mark on the South African struggle for racial justice. Upon his return to India in 1915, Gandhi’s philosophy of non-violence became infused with the struggle for swaraj (self-rule). In India, Gandhi raised his philosophy of non-violence to new levels of sophistication. Gandhi believed that organized non-violent civil resistance, not war, would awaken the consciousness of the British to their unjust domination over India. This was the belief that guided the Bardoili protest, the Amritsar Massacre and the Salt March. Gandhi’s mobilizations were so successful that they tarnished Britain’s international reputation and provoked irreversible change in Britain’s policy towards India, illustrating the potential of organized non-violent civil resistance. Gandhi was an uncompromising opponent of violence. He knew that using violence to fight violence corrupts and debases even the most noble of causes and leaves a legacy of bloodshed. If we look to the revolutionary movements of the twentieth century, we see the truth in Gandhi’s beliefs. The Bolsheviks, Maoists, the Khmer Rouge, the Shining Path, Sein Fein and the Palestinian Liberation Organization all left tremendous bloodshed in the paths towards â€Å"liberation.† They left a legacy of death and violence, rather than peace. Gandhi knew that the only solution to hatred, ignorance and fear was love, truth, and forgiveness. He knew that overcoming unjust hierarchies doesn’t mean inverting them; it means eliminating them altogether. Gandhi and his followers, like those who risked their lives to hide Jews during the Nazi regime, were prepared to die to make injustice visible for the entire world to see. For Gandhi, truth was a powerful weapon, needing no others. Indeed, truth has proven to be the most powerful weapon humanity has even known. One of the strategies that made Gandhi an effective leader was his ability to build bridges between communities, between upper and lower caste Hindus and among Hindus, Muslims and Christians. Gandhi saw the intrinsic humanity of all individuals, regardless of their caste, religion, gender, or social position in society. Deeply upset by communalism (Hindu-Muslim animosity), Gandhi was able to promote religious harmony through his personal and public actions. When this harmony was threatened, he fasted. Gandhi’s tremendous ability to bring an end to provincial and religious hatreds was tested time and time again with the Yeravda Pact and his fasts to end violence in Calcutta, Bengal and Delhi. One of the characteristics that made Gandhi successful was his ability to identify with the poor masses of India. Gandhi’s philosophy of self-rule distinguished itself from the elitism that characterized the Indian Independence movement, as well as virtually all other Independence movements of this century. Gandhi knew that freeing India from the yoke of imperialism also meant freeing the masses from economic servitude. Gandhi was opposed to Independence for only an elite few; he was fearful of an Independent India that would replicate past religious, caste and economic oppressions. Gandhi provided leadership by example. He exhibited the perfect marriage between personal morality and public action. The best example of this was his use of homespun cloth that provided employment for the poor masses and revived the village economy. In a world in which the inequalities generated by a global economy are becoming more obvious and frightening, Gandhi’s critique of technology and economies that benefit the powerful and marginalize the powerless is all too relevant today. The best demonstration of Gandhi’s leadership is his worldwide influence. American civil rights leader, Martin Luther King Jr., the Dalai Lama, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Archbishop Belo of East Timor, and countless other leaders have been deeply influenced by Gandhi and his philosophy of non-violence. For example, in 1994, in a Gandhian spirit of forgiveness and reconciliation, Nelson Mandela reached out to his adversaries- the same ones who had tortured and imprisoned him to bring an end to apartheid rule. Gandhi’s greatest legacy is the notoriety he achieved for advocating non-violence as a means of overcoming oppression. It is this belief that guides the actions of millions of average citizens who participate in civil society movements today across the globe. A tribute to Gandhi’s enduring lifetime achievements will be paid by naming the first decade of the new millenium the United Nations Decade of Non-Violence. No greater tribute has ever been paid to a leader of this century. Inspired and profoundly moved by his life and work, I hope the Decade of Non-Violence will truly awaken the consciousness of humanity into liberating ourselves from all and every kind of oppression; using truth as our only tool.

Saturday, January 4, 2020

Payton v. New York Supreme Court Case, Arguments, Impact

In Payton v. New York (1980), the Supreme Court found that warrantless entry into a private home to make a felony arrest violated the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. New York state statutes could not authorize officers to illegally enter a persons home. Fast Facts: Payton v. New York Case Argued: March 26, 1979, October 9, 1979Decision Issued: April 15, 1980Petitioner: State of New YorkRespondent: Theodore PaytonKey Questions: Did the New York police violate the 4th Amendment rights of alleged murderer Theodore Payton by conducting a warrant-less search of his home (acting under a New York law allowing them to enter a private residence to arrest someone without a warrant)?  Majority Decision: Justices Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, and StevensDissenting: Justices Burger, White, and RehnquistRuling: The court found for Payton, saying that the 14th amendment prohibits searches without probable cause which has been established by a neutral magistrate. Facts of the Case In 1970, detectives from the New York City police department found probable cause linking Theodore Payton to the murder of a manager at a gas station. At 7:30 a.m. the officers approached Paytons apartment in the Bronx. They knocked but received no response. They did not have a warrant to search Paytons home. After about 30 minutes of waiting for Payton to open the door, the officers called an emergency response team and used a crowbar to force open the door to the apartment. Payton was not inside. Instead, an officer found a .30 caliber shell casing which was used as evidence at Paytons trial. At his trial, Paytons attorney moved to have the evidence of the shell casing suppressed because it was gathered during an illegal search. The trial court judge ruled that the evidence could be admitted because New York State Code of Criminal Procedure allowed for warrantless and forcible entry. Evidence could be seized if it was in plain view. Payton appealed the decision and the case proceeded upwards through the courts. The U.S. Supreme Court decided to take on the case after several similar cases also appeared before the justices as a result of New York State statutes. Constitutional Issues Can police officers enter and search a home without a warrant to make a felony arrest? Can a New York state statute permit an unconstitutional search and seizure of evidence under the Fourth Amendment? The Arguments Attorneys on behalf of Payton argued that the officers violated Paytons Fourth Amendment rights when they entered and searched his home without a valid search warrant. The felony arrest warrant did not give the officers grounds to force open Paytons door and seize evidence, even though the evidence was in plain view. The officers had plenty of time to get a separate search warrant for Paytons home, the attorneys argued. The shell casing was obtained during an illegal search when Payton was not present in the home and therefore could not be used as evidence in court. Attorneys representing the state of New York argued that the officers were following the New York Code of Criminal Procedure when they entered and seized evidence in plain view in Paytons home. The state of New York relied on the case United States v. Watson for analysis. In that case, the Supreme Court upheld a common law rule that officers may conduct a warrantless arrest in a public place if they had probable cause to believe the arrestee had committed a felony. The rule in U.S. v. Watson was crafted out of English common law tradition. Under common law at the time the Fourth Amendment was written, officers could enter a home to make a felony arrest. Therefore, the attorneys argued, the Fourth Amendment should allow officers to enter Paytons home to arrest him. Majority Opinion Justice John Paul Stevens delivered the majority opinion. In a 6-3 decision, the Court focused on the language and intent of the Fourth Amendment, incorporated to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment prevents police from â€Å"making a non-consensual entry into the suspect’s home in order to make a routine felony arrest.† The officers in Payton’s case had no reason to believe Payton was home. There were no noises coming from inside the apartment. If Payton had been home, the officers might have needed to enter the apartment to properly arrest him, but there was no reason to believe someone was in the apartment. The majority opinion was careful to draw a distinction between the situation in Payton’s case and a situation where exigent circumstances might have been present. Exigent or special circumstances may provide officers with a valid reason to enter the home. Without such circumstances, officers cannot enter the home without a search warrant. In ruling this way, the Court placed the determination for probable cause in the hands of judges rather than officers and put an individual’s Fourth Amendment right above police intuition. Dissenting Opinion Justice Byron R. White, Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, and Justice William H. Rehnquist dissented on the basis that common law allowed the officers to enter Paytons home. They looked to common law tradition at the time the Fourth Amendment was ratified. English common law required that officers arresting someone for a felony knock, announce their presence, approach the house during the day, and have probable cause to believe the subject of the arrest warrant is inside the house. Based on these requirements, the dissenting Justices wrote that English officers regularly entered homes to make felony arrests. Justice White explained: Todays decision ignores the carefully crafted restrictions on the common law power of arrest entry, and thereby overestimates the dangers inherent in that practice. Impact The Payton ruling built upon past decisions including U.S. v. Chimel and U.S. v. Watson. In U.S. v. Watson (1976), the court ruled that an officer could arrest a person in a public space without a felony arrest warrant if they had probable cause. Payton prevented this rule from extending into the home. The case drew a hard line at the front door in order to uphold Fourth Amendment protections against warrantless home intrusions. Sources Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980).United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (1976).