12 Angry Men Movie Analysis Essay Example for Free

12 Angry Men Movie Analysis Essay After the jurors go to the meeting room to discuss and arrive at consensus whether the young boy is guilty or not, we get to see different personalities combined to form a group to resolve the issue. Initially 11 out of 12 jurors voted in favour of boy being guilty. Therefore, first prominent thing I noticed was that there was lack of conviction about the criticality of the issue. People had already formed their judgement before they stepped into the meeting room. They believed the testimonies of several eyewitnesses and the arguments of the prosecutor leading to the conclusion that the boy was guilty. In the beginning, 11 out of 12 jurors were not sensitive about the seriousness of the decision they were going to make and the impact it was going to have on the young boy’s life. They were not ready to waste any time over discussing that issue because they had already perceived the young boy guilty based on his background and crimes he committed before as well as the jurors’ previous experiences in life. See more:Â  Manifest Destiny essay When the protagonist in the movie showed opposition to agree the boy’s guilt, then the rest of the people became frustrated since they had to come to consensus to give a judgement. This showed the conviction and thoughtfulness of the protagonist to the criticality of their objective as jurors. It was also evident that being a minority does not mean you have to go majority’s way under the influence or pressure of majority against your wish. After listening to the protagonist, juror started changing their original guilty decision one by one. This showed their willingness to change their stance having been convinced by the protagonist’s logic. Protagonist stuck to the practicality of the situation and logic in order to bring the possible flaws in the testimonies of the eye witnesses by reproducing the situations and verifying the possibility of authenticity of the testimony. In doing so, he influenced the members of the group that there are lacunae in the testimonies, and the benefit of doubt needs to be given to the boy when it is a matter of his life and death. The various people in the group started applying their mind and making sense of the possible flaws in the testimonies. Many started to pitch in their ideas and the protagonist was listening to them all and using them to strengthen his hypothesis of uncertainty about boy being guilty. Now they started utilizing the resources in the group to make the most informed decision. The group dynamics was at work the best. They were supplementing each other’s logic by their own logic in order to make a conclusion of the veracity of the evidence and its testimony. There were a couple of aggressive people in the group. When one of them lashed out at the old man in the group, another person intervened and warned him not to repeat insulting behaviour. Thus, along the way the group stated forming norms about the behaviour in the group. Also, when one man changed his judgement just for the sake of it in order to come to consensus sooner than later, then another person made it a point to him by saying that he needed to present his logic for changing his decision and he did not want to accept his ‘yes’ or ‘no’ just for the sake of it. Some people engaged themselves in social loafing without regard to the seriousness of the objective; they were reminded of the objective by others. Last person son left so he was seeing his son in the young boy.

Attitudes towards homosexuality among university students

Attitudes towards homosexuality among university students In 2006, Answers Corporation explained that homosexuality is a term created by 19th century. The meaning of homosexual is, having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex (The American Heritage ® Dictionary of the English Language, 2006). Homosexuality includes two groups, which are female homosexuality and male homosexuality. Female homosexuality is described as lesbianism and the male homosexuality is described as gay (Answers Corporation, 2006). At the beginning, some of the psychologists said that homosexuality is a mental illness and put it into the list of mental disorder. However, after some of the studies, they realized that homosexuality is not a mental disorder because it is related to psychological disturbance and is in no sense of mental problem as well. So, homosexuality removed from the list of mental disorders (Tozeland, Loewen, Monteith, n.d.). The factors that lead to homosexuality are critical and discuss by many specialist fields such as psychologists and psychiatrists. View of Psychologists toward Reason of Homosexuality In Robinson study (as cited in Facts about Homosexuality and Mental Health, n.d.), early of the twentieth century, Ellis (1901) argued that homosexuality was inborn and it was not immoral, not a disease, and that many homosexuals made outstanding contributions to society. Sigmund Freud has a different theory of human sexuality from Ellis. He believed that all human beings were innately bisexual. Human beings become heterosexual or homosexual as a result of what they have experiences with other people or environment that surrounding of them. Freud also agreed with Ellis that homosexual orientation should not be viewed as a form of pathology (Facts about Homosexuality and Mental Health, n.d.). He wrote a letter to an American mother in 1935. He said that, people cant get any advantages from their homosexual orientation. But, they were always blamed, discriminated by other people. Actually, homosexuality is not a sin, not an illness as well. He also said that, we need to see it as a sexual function produced by certain sexual development. There are many individuals of ancient and modern times that were respect by us are homosexuality. According to him, it is injustice and cruelty to describe that homosexuality is a crime and sin. He told the American mother that, analysis may let her son feel harmony, peace and full efficiency when her son in the time of unhappy, neurotic, torn by conflicts, and inhibited in the social life whether he remains a homosexual or gets changed (Facts about Homosexuality and Mental Health, n.d.). View of Reincarnation Researchers toward Reason of Homosexuality According to Dr. Ian Stevenson, he concludes that homosexuality is a natural human trait that results from the reincarnation of a person of one gender as a person of the opposite gender. Such people must adjust to their new gender and sexuality at an early age. The difficulty of adjusting relating to the sex change and lead to homosexuality later on in their lives (as cited in Williams, 2006). Reincarnation means the soul occupation a new body after the death of the former body (The Columbia Encyclopedia, 2006). The classic form of the reincarnation doctrine was formulated in India, but certainly not earlier than the 9th century BC, when the Brahmana writings were composed. After the Upanishads clearly defined the concept between the 7th and the 5th century BC, it was adopted by the other important Eastern religions which originated in India, Buddhism and Jainism. Due to the spread of Buddhism in Asia, reincarnation was later adopted by Chinese Taoism, but not earlier than the 3rd century BC (Reincarnation, its meaning and consequences, n.d.). Former girls who are reborn as boys may wish to dress as girls or prefer to play with girls rather than boys. Former boys who are reborn as girls may wish to dress as boys or prefer to play with boys rather than girls. Former men who are reborn as women will be attracted to women and will therefore be lesbian. Former women who are reborn as men will be attracted to men and will therefore be gay (as cited in Williams, 2006). Former means past-life or previous life and reborn mean present lifetime. In many cases the person begins talking about his or her life or lives before the present lifetime, about their previous death and about the time between lives including the planning of the present lifetime (as cited in Williams, 2006). So, Dr. Ian Stevenson concludes that, homosexuality is the stem of reincarnation. Beside of the factors to cause homosexuality, the factors that influence people attitudes towards homosexuality are also very controversial. Different people may bring out different of attitudes, thinking, feeling and behaviors towards homosexuality. The differences can be considered contribute to some of the factors such as personal and social factors. Personal Factors that Influence Attitudes towards Homosexual Age. Have a measure of tolerance of homosexual behaviors from attitude towards homosexuality in 29 nations, such as the nations of Australia, USA, Norway, and others indicated that the higher points of tolerance scored as 100 and the lowest point as 0. The higher the tolerance scored the higher the acceptance of homosexuality. The predicted level of tolerances for young people age 20 would be 53 points. People in middle age have tolerance scores of 43 points by age 40. At age 60, the tolerance scored is about 33 and with 23 points at age 80. It showed that, as the age increasing, the tolerance scored of homosexual was decreasing. The tolerance point of elder was low compare to younger people (Attitude towards homosexuality in 29 nations, n.d.). Beside of the factors of age, the attitudes also influences by religion. Religion background. Different religious will makes a large difference to tolerance of homosexuality. According to a test of measure of homosexual behaviors tolerance, the higher points of tolerance scored as 100 and the lowest point as 0. The higher the tolerance scored the higher acceptance of homosexuality. Ardent believers in a personal God would rate homosexual behavior at 28 points. But, staunch atheists who are totally reject the idea of personal God rate homosexuality at 59 points (Attitude towards homosexuality in 29 nations, n.d.). It obviously showed that, Ardent believers in a personal God was less accepting to homosexuality which rate 28 points compare to staunch atheists who totally reject the idea of personal God which rate 59 points (Attitude towards homosexuality in 29 nations, n.d.). Beside that, church goers are less tolerant of homosexuality than those who are never darken a churchs door. People who are regular going to church rate 32 points, and those who are shunning the church were rating 48 points (Attitude towards homosexuality in 29 nations, n.d.). It is because according to Christians, homosexuality violating some of Gods most basic commandments for humanity. Christians belief in Gods condemnation of homosexuality is claimed to be so important that forcing them to treat gays equally means forcing them to violate their religious beliefs (Cline, n.d.). In nearly all societies throughout human history, religion offers answers to fundamental questions concerning the origin and meaning of things. Religious systems of explanation offer accounts of the creation of the world, as well as specifying the rules for proper behavior-and the consequences for infractions-that have been imposed by the Creator (Gross, 2005). Christianity traditionally forbid sexual relations between people of the same sex and teaches that such behavior is sinful (Gross, 2005). So, religious belief and church attendance have strongly influence on attitudes towards homosexuality in almost 29 nations. Beside of the factors of religion, the attitudes toward homosexuality also influences by faculty of study among students (Societal Attitudes towards Homosexuality, 2006). Faculty of study. Students who studied faculties of Arts or Social Science had more positive attitudes toward gay man compared to Science or Business students. The result revealed that students in the faculties of Arts and Social Science had more positive attitudes towards homosexual compare with students in faculties Business and Science (Schellenberg, Hirt and Sears, 1999). It shows that there are two possible reasons that determined these results. First, students who value traditional sex roles may be the most likely to select programs in faculties of business and sciences where political attitudes are conservative. Second, students with less value traditional sex roles may be the most likely to select programs in faculties of Art and Social Science. It is because they thought the departments are more liberal (Schellenberg, Hirt and Sears, 1999). In academic field, beside the factor of different faculty of study, the educational level also plays a very important role to determine the attitudes towards homosexuality. Educational level. The higher years of education people involve, the higher scored of tolerances people have. The higher points of tolerance scored as 100 and the lowest point as 0. The higher of tolerance scored sign that it is more acceptance of homosexuality (Attitude towards homosexuality in 29 nations, n.d.). The point of tolerances was 34 out of 100 rating by people who with 8 years of education. Those with 10 years of education were rating 38 points and people who have complete 2 years masters degree after 4 year bachelors degree was rating 51 points. So, the gap between the least educated and the most educated is 17 points. (Attitude towards homosexuality in 29 nations, n.d.). This tolerance-enhancing effect of education actually is link to other forces which importantly depend on the independent of age, so the lesser censure of homosexuality among the highly educated cannot be attributed to a changing social climate. The age effects themselves suggest that there is a changing social climate, but the education effects are in addition to that (Attitude towards homosexuality in 29 nations, n.d.). Other than that, gender also likely to have strongly influences on the attitudes towards homosexuality. Many researchers conducted researches that related to gender differences and their attitudes towards gay men and lesbians. Gender. Gender belief system is the pattern of masculine or feminine behavior of an individual that is defined by a particular culture and that is largely determined by a childs upbringing (Answers.com, 2006). Kite and Whitley suggested that men rating the gay men more negative than women, but they were same in the rating of lesbians. Within the male and female, women made approximately equal rating of lesbians and gay men, but mens rating of lesbians were more positive than rating of gay men (as cited in Louiderback Whitley, 1997). According to Kite and Whitley study, it is because people who have strong gender belief system have more negative attitudes towards homosexual because homosexuality violates the norms of that belief system. Also, men held more traditional sex-role attitudes than women. So, in the perspective of men, male should be act more masculine and aggressive. They also strongly hold the traditional sexual orientation which is heterosexuality (as cited in Louiderback Whitley, 1997). Beside that, a study (as cited in Schellenberg, Hirt and Sears 1999.), it also showed that male hold more negative attitudes towards gay men than lesbians, and, they also hold more negative attitudes to homosexual compare with female. Different attitude towards homosexuality is the impact of personal factors. But, the social factors also have certain level of impact on the attitudes towards homosexuality. Social Factors that Influence Attitudes towards Homosexual Media. Dissemination of information about homosexuality in marketing, television shows, and public opinion polls, will affect the attitudes of public toward homosexuals no matter it is accurate or inaccurate. The information of homosexuals will lead to AIDS has strong impact on attitudes towards homosexuality. The perpetuation of homophobic attitudes such as the treatment of people with HIV, moralistic interpretations of people with AIDS, certain conceptions about the methods of HIV transmitted, media representation of AIDS, and even the way in which medicines objectivity reinforces a moral view inimical to gay men, lesbians and bisexuals (Anderson, Fakhfakh, Kondylis, 1999). Many of the researches have approved that some of the factors influence attitudes towards homosexuality. There are also some of the researches conducted by researchers to approve whether the stereotypes of people towards homosexuality is correct or not. Social differences. Social differences in the tolerance of homosexuality are quite large. This can help to explain why people living in different social circles have different perceptions of what the average Australian thinks. For example, 70 years old had left school at the end of year 10, and who holds strong religious beliefs and attends church regularly would rate homosexual behaviors at just 1 point out of 100 or always wrong (Attitude towards homosexuality in 29 nations, n.d.). Stereotypes towards Homosexuality Characteristics. Normally, people would like to believe that gay men are effeminate and lesbians are tomboys while there are some homosexual people who fit these stereotypes. But, actually they are not representative of all homosexual people. So, the stereotypes of characteristics of homosexual people are not correct at all (Tozeland, Loewen, Monteith, n.d.). Duration of relationship. Studies indicate that people would have the stereotypes that homosexual person will not involve in long-term, stable and close relationship with their partners. But, it is not unusual to find homosexuality couples who had been together for over twenty years (Tozeland, Loewen, Monteith, n.d.). Homosexual parents. Some people believe that children of gay or lesbian people are more likely to grow up to be homosexual as their parents. Beside that, people also believe that these children will grow up without appropriate ethical values. In fact, homosexual parents would like to teach their children the values of kindness and charity because they are the victims of hate and discrimination in society (Tozeland, Loewen, Monteith, n.d.). According to Family Research Report (2001), children who have homosexual parents would be expected to do less well than kids in general in school, on the job, in marriage, raising their own kids, and others. Normally, children of homosexual parents cannot do well in sex identity, language skills and mathematics fields compare to children of heterosexual parents. But, children of homosexual parents hold strongly social study than children of heterosexual parents. However, they have tries to be successful in life. So not every child with homosexual parents would be expected to be a failure, nor would every child raised by a homosexual parent be expected to fail. Likewise, not every child rose by a married mother and father would be expected to succeed (Family Research Report, 2001). Religion. The vast majority of the worlds churches take the stance that homosexual acts are a sin. To cite an example of a religious viewpoint, the Roman Catholic Church in a passage from its Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, states, As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents ones own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God. Homosexuality is labeled as a moral disorder; it is not regular or acceptable (The Scientific Debate on Homosexuality, n.d.). People believe that Christians are disagreeing homosexuality. Some religious groups interpret certain biblical passages as injunctions against homosexuality, while others view these passages in the light of historical context, much like slavery. Actually, many Christians were condemning discrimination and prejudice. They welcome and affirm homosexual Christians into the body of Christ, with unique gifts to offer (Tozeland, Loewen, Monteith, n.d.). Beside to conduct researches to reveal the stereotypes of people towards homosexuality is correct or not, there also a research on how the public opinion towards homosexuality among different nations. Public Opinion toward Homosexual among Different Nations In study of Societal Attitudes towards Homosexuality (2006), it showed that the result of acceptance homosexuality in Africa and the Middle East are tend to strongly disagree. But, major Latin American countries such as Mexico and Brazil accept homosexuality. At Australia 1999, the result showed that 28% of people think that sexual relations between two adults of the same sex are not wrong at all, 15 % think that it is wrong only sometimes, 9 % think that it is almost always wrong, and 48% think that it is always wrong (Attitude towards homosexuality in 29 nations, n.d.). According to Robinson (2003), Apoll by the Gallup Organization from United State has conducted a research of acceptable of homosexuality in the public. The result showed the percentage of the survey result: do you personally believe that it is acceptable or not acceptable for gays and lesbians to engage in same-sex behavior? as in 1982-JUN, there was 34% people accept homosexuality and by 1992-JUN, there was an increasing percentage which is 38%. In 1992-MAR, there was 44% and by 1997-APR, there was 42%. In 1999-FEB, there was 50 % and by 2001-MAY, there was 52%. There was 51% in 2002-MAY and 54% in 2003-MAY. It showed that the percentage of acceptable towards homosexuality in the United State is increasing by year of 1982 to 2003. The Pew Research Centers 2003 Global Attitudes Survey found that, people in Africa and the Middle East strongly object to societal acceptance of homosexuality. But there is far greater tolerance for homosexuality in major Latin American countries such as Mexico, Argentina, Bolivia and Brazil. Opinion in Europe is split between West and East. Majorities in every Western European nation surveyed say homosexuality should be accepted by society, while most Russians, Poles and Ukrainians disagree. 51% of Americans believes homosexuality should be accepted, while 42% disagree (as cited in Societal Attitudes towards Homosexuality, 2006). Significant of This Study Based on the above introduction, one can see the important of understanding of students attitude to homosexuality. Firstly, according to Lisa Lamar and Mary Kite (1998), it said that males have more negative attitudes towards gay men and this is due to gender roles factor. However, Schellenberg, Hirt Sears (1999), found that males who study in Arts and Social Sciences have more positive attitudes towards gay men. So, this study want to know UTAR Psychology course students attitudes towards gay men is affected by gender roles or the faculties that they have chose. Second, according to research of Brownell, he found that religions are related to negative attitudes towards lesbian and gay men. Malaysia have many types of religions include Islamic, Buddhist, Indian, and others. This study wants to know are there having differences of attitudes between religions in Malaysia or not. This will make us know more about how the attitudes of different religions people towards lesbian and gay men. This can reduce conflict or make different religions people can communicate easily. Third, Many students have confused or varying opinions on homosexuality. It is important for all students to come to terms with what they currently think and feel about homosexuality (Tozeland, Loewen, Monteith, n.d.). This study want to let them conscious about their attitudes towards homosexual and let them decide they want to change it or not. Beside that, through this study, students of psychology course can more concern about issue of homosexuality and conduct or do further research on it. The further research can help public know about homosexual such as why homosexual, what reason to make them become homosexual, and others. Once public know more about the homosexual group, they might change their attitudes towards homosexual as well as reduce their discrimination perception towards homosexual. This study will determine whether the result of this study same with the result of previous researches or not. For this study, it should make a clear distinction of attitudes toward gay men and lesbian women with divide the homosexual to lesbian and gay men. For example, many of previous research conducted research by using the term homosexual but do not divide the term homosexual into gay men and lesbian women. Research Questions For this study, it will explore the gender influences on attitudes towards homosexuality among university students. We would like to understand more about the gender differences of acceptance of homosexuality among university students. Beside that, this study will determine whether the result is same with the result of previous researches or not. The research questions in this study are as follows. First, are there any gender differences in the attitudes towards lesbian and homosexual? Second, is there any gender difference in their knowledge of homosexual? Third, are there any religion differences in their attitude towards lesbian and homosexual? Fourth, is there any religion difference in their knowledge of homosexual? CHAPTER II METHOD Participants 118 Psychology students from year 1 to year 3 in University Tunku Abdul Rahman were selected as the sample of this study. Simple random method was used in the selection. There are 82 females and 36 females. All of the students who participated in the survey are simple random sampling. Materials Questionnaire. The survey conducted using questionnaire (see Appendix 1). All participants completed a 4 pages questionnaire consisting of two sections. Instructions accompanying the questionnaire guaranteed anonymity and confidentiality. The first part is about the respondents demographic such as gender, age, year, race, and religion. The second part is about respondents attitudes toward lesbian and gay. There are 32 questions in this test. In this test, the first 4 questions are asked about the general attitudes towards homosexuality such as a) I know about homosexuals, and b) Sexual orientation is caused by genes, but not the environment (see appendix 1). Question 5 to 18 is asked about the attitudes towards lesbians such as a) Lesbians just cant fit into our society, b) exual relations between two female is wrong, c) Female homosexuality is a sin and, d) Lesbians are sick (see appendix 1). Question 19 to 32 is asked about the attitudes towards gay men such as a) I think male homosexuals are disgusting, b) Male homosexuality is a perversion, c) Sexual relations between two male is wrong and, d) Homosexual behavior between two men is just plain wrong (see appendix 1). Participants had to rate on the Likert Scale (strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, and strongly agree) according to their attitudes towards homosexual which include lesbian and gay man. Software. SPSS for Windows (12.0) was used for all statistical analyses. Procedures The survey was conducted by using simple random sampling design. A sampling frame, which is the numbered name lists of students from Year One to Year Three Psychology class at UTAR was obtained from the Faculty General Office. All the name of the students were mixed and came out with a new name list (see Appendix 2). A sample size of 118 was selected. The simple random sampling was conducted as follows: A starting point in the table of Random Numbers in the Appendix 4 was chosen using a finger stab. The stab came down at column 6, row 15 at the entry 13916. As the sampling frame ranged from 1 to 301, the left three numbers in each set of five were used when drawing the sample. The number 0 was ignored if that number over 301. The numbers to be included in sampling were been identified by moving across the table from left to right every alternate line started from up and down. The numbers got were highline in yellow color (see Appendix 3). We distributed the questionnaire to the samples that have been selected by simple random method through UTAR lecturers. The survey took between ten to five-teen minutes to complete and then collected back by lecturers after the respondents completed it in the same day. Instructions accompanying the questionnaire guaranteed anonymity and confidentiality. CHAPTER III RESULT Reliability Test There were five dimensions in the questionnaire. First, the dimension of Negative Attitudes toward Lesbians, it consisted by 10 questions which is from question 5 to question 14. The Cronbachs Alpha was 0.81 after questions 5, 7, 9, 13 were deleted (Table 1, pg 16). Therefore, the mean of these 6 items was calculated to represent the respondents negative attitudes toward lesbians. Second, for the dimension of Positive Attitudes toward Lesbians, it consisted by 4 questions which is from question 15 to question 18. There were 0.49 alphas when question 16 was deleted (Table 1, pg 16). For the dimension of Negative Attitudes toward Gay Men, it consisted by 10 questions which is from question 19 to question 28. There were 0.87 alphas when question 20 was deleted (Table 1, pg 16). For the dimension of Positive Attitudes toward Gay Men, it consisted by 4 questions which is from question 29 to question 32. There were 0.64 alphas and none of the questions being deleted (Table 1, pg 16). The reliability alpha of the question 1 to 4 was 0.01 alphas. So, these 4 questions cannot compute as one dimension and will be analyzed individually (see Table 1, pg 16). Table 1 Reliability test Dimension Cronbachs Alpha N of Items Items Negative Attitudes toward Lesbians 0.81 6 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14 Positive Attitudes toward Lesbians 0.49 3 15, 17, 18 Negative Attitudes toward Gay Men 0.87 9 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 Positive Attitudes toward Gay Men 0.64 4 29, 30, 31, 32 I know about homosexual Sexual orientation is caused by genes, but not the environment I have ever thought to myself when I found that an attractive person of the sex was homosexual-what a waste 0.01 4 1, 2, 3, 4 I have ever said, I dont mind homosexuals, as long as I dont have to see it or something similar Gender Differences toward Homosexual Negative attitudes toward lesbians. The results of Independent t- Tests showed that there was no significant difference between gender negative attitudes towards the lesbian, t (118) = 0.08, n.s. , where the mean for the negative attitudes toward lesbian for male students is 2.60 ( SD = 0.81), and 2.59 (SD = 0.71) for female students (Table 2, pg 19). Positive attitudes toward lesbians. The results of Independent t- Tests showed that there was no significant difference between gender positive attitudes toward the lesbians, t (118) = 0.31, n.s., where the mean for the positive attitudes toward lesbians for male students is 3.29 (SD = 0.66), and 3.32 (SD = 0.54) for female students (Table 2, pg 19). Negative attitudes toward gay men. The results of Independent t- Tests showed that there was a significant difference between gender negative attitudes toward gay men, t (118) = 2.24, p Positive attitudes toward gay men. The results of Independent t- Tests showed that there was no significant difference between gender positive attitudes toward gay men, t (118) = -1.520, n.s., where the mean for the positive attitudes toward gay men for male students is 3.11 (SD = 0.80), and 3.30 (SD = 0.52) for female students (Table 2, pg 19). Knowledge towards homosexuality. The results of Independent t- revealed that there was no significant difference between genders in their knowledge towards homosexuality. For the I know about homosexual, t (118) = 0.82, n.s., where the mean for the knowledge towards homosexuality for male students is 2.31 (SD=0.82), and 2.17 (SD=0.83) for female students. For the Sexual orientation is caused by genes, but not the environment, t (118) = -0.890, n.s., where the mean for the knowledge towards homosexuality for male students is 3.28 (SD=1.19), and 4.85 (SD=10.57) for female students. For the I have ever thought to myself when I found that an attractive person of the sex was homosexual-what a waste , t (118) = 0.921, n.s., where the mean for the knowledge towards homosexuality for male students is 2.83 (SD=0.97), and 2.65 (SD=1.03) for female students. For the I have ever said, I dont mind homosexuals, as long as I dont have to see it or something similar, t (118) = 0.403, n.s., where the mean for the knowledge towards homosexuality for male students is 3.97 (SD=0.61), and 3.92 (SD=0.76) for female students (see Table 2, pg 19). Table 2 Gender differences Dimension Mean t-Value p-Value Males Females Negative Attitudes toward Lesbians 2.60 (SD=0.81) 2.59 (SD=0.71) 0.080 0.94 Positive Attitudes toward Lesbians 3.29 (SD=0.66) 3.32 (SD=0.54) -0.31 0.76 Negative Attitudes toward Gay Men 3.03 (SD=0.83) 2.72 (SD=0.63) 2.24 0.027* Positive Attitudes toward Gay Men 3.11 (SD=0.80) 3.30 (SD=0.52) -1.520 0.13 I know about homosexual Sexual orientation is caused by genes, but not the environment I have ever thought to myself when I found that an attractive person of the sex was homosexual-what a waste I have ever said, I dont mind homosexuals, as long as I dont have to see it or something similar 2.31 (SD=0.82) 3.28 (SD=1.19) 2.83 (SD=0.97) 3.97 (SD=0.61) 2.17 (SD=0.83) 4.85 (SD=10.57) 2.65 (SD=1.03) 3.91 (SD=0.76) 0.82 -0.89 0.92 0.403 0.42 0.38 0.36 0.69 Note: * p Religion Differences toward Homosexual Negative attitudes toward lesbians. The results of Independent t- Tests showed that there was no significant difference between religions have negative attitudes towards lesbian, t (118) = 1.46, n.s., where the mean for negative attitudes toward lesbian for Buddhist is 2.65 (SD=0.76), and 2.42 (SD=0.67) for Chris

Machiavellis Reputation in the Modern World Essays -- Biography Biogr

Machiavelli's Reputation in the Modern World Niccolà ² Machiavelli was known during much his life as a part of the republican government in Florence until 1512. At that time, the Medici family took over the city and ruled under a more monarchical system. From that point until his death in 1527, Machiavelli was always just on the outside of Florentine politics. He would occasionally get work from the Medici but his tasks were never as important as they had been under the republican government of the past. As he was trying to find his way back into a major role in Florentine government, Machiavelli wrote The Prince, a manual of sorts that explained how a monarch should rule his state and why. While Machiavelli had been a strong proponent of republican ideals in the past, in The Prince, his ideas are far from adhering to republicanism. The book seems to promote the ideal monarch as a cold, heartless person whose only goal in life should be to retain power, regardless of who or what he destroys. This includes killing enemie s of the state, personal enemies of the Prince, and even, in some cases, friends or family. While The Prince was not the first book of this kind, it was the first to suggest a government that rules with no regard for religion or morality. Machiavelli did not particularly pay heed to religious law in the way he lived his life, but he also did not particularly care for the Catholic Church of the time because of the lack of morality demonstrated by the Pope's and other supposedly "religious men's" actions at the time. There are other works that Machiavelli wrote both before and after The Prince that survive today, as well as letters he wrote to his friends that demonstrate a different set of ideals than th... ...: 1940-1960." The Journal of Modern History 33.2 (June 1961): 113-136. Howe, Daniel Walker. "European Sources of Political Ideas in Jeffersonian America." Reviews in American History 10.4 (December 1982): 28-44. Kocis, Robert A. Machiavelli Redeemed. Bethlehem: Lehigh UP, 1998. Machiavelli, Niccolà ². Machiavelli and His Friends: Their Personal Correspondence. Trans. James B. Atkinson & David Sices. DeKalb, Illinois: Northern Illinois UP, 1996. Machiavelli, Niccolà ². The Discourses from The Portable Machiavelli. Ed. & Trans. Peter Bondanella & Mark Musa. New York: Penguin, 1979. Machiavelli, Niccolà ². The Prince from The Portable Machiavelli. Ed. & Trans. Peter Bondanella & Mark Musa. New York: Penguin, 1979. Peterson, Paul E. "The President's Dominance in Foreign Policy Making." Political Science Quarterly 109.2 (Summer, 1994): 215-234.

Death by Cell-Phone Essay -- Exploratory Essays Research Papers

Death by Cell-Phone Imagine being in the passenger seat of a car on a quiet street in Atlanta. At about 4:00 A.M. a cell phone begins to ring; then the driver reaches down to grab the phone. Within the next few moments, the driver loses control of the car. The car wraps around a telephone poll. This isn’t a dream. In fact, it was reality for model Niki Taylor in May of 2001. According to the USA Today, Niki Taylor was seriously injured in this accident with extensive damage to her liver and abdomen. Most people who remember this incident might not know that the cause of it was a cell-phone. This accident, however, is just one example of the dangers that are involved when someone uses their cell phone while operating a motor vehicle. Many people just sit back and think that this could never happen to them, but have they ever thought about how well they really pay attention to the road when they are on their cell-phone? It is proven that people talking on their cell phone cannot fully control his/her vehicle while moving stated in the Consumers Research Magazine. The use of a cell phone also can reduce the driver's physical control--one hand on the steering wheel, one hand on the phone--which reduces response capability during an emergency. Cell phones have become increasingly popular over the years especially through college age students. Most college students cannot afford to pay a phone bill at their house or in their dorm, so they keep a cell phone to talk to friends or family back home. According to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), drivers between the ages of 20 and 54 accounted for 81 percent of the accidents reviewed. Some 72 percent of those talking on a cell phone at the time of acci... ...o State U lib. 5 March, 2003. http://search.epnet.com> Mathias, Craig. â€Å"Dumb and Dumber†. Electronic Engineering Times 1176 (Fall 2001). ) Academic Search Premier. Colorado State U lib. 5 March, 2003. http://search.epnet.com> Moore, Larry R; Moore, Gregory S. â€Å" The impact of cell phones on driver safety†. Professional Safety. 46 (Summer 2001). EBSCO Academic Search Premier. Colorado State U Lib. 30 march,2003. Ropeik, David; Gray, George. â€Å"Cell Phones and Driving: How risky?† Consumers’ Research Magazine, 86 (Winter 2003). Academic Search Premier. Colorado State U Lib. 5 March, 2003. Schwartz, Epharim. â€Å" Its time for drivers to defend the (wireless) right to bear cell phones†. InfoWorld 22 (Summer 2002). EBSCO Academic Search Premier. Colorado State U Lib. 30 march,2003. http://search.epnet.com>

Octavians Journey to Become Augustus :: essays research papers

Octavian was born in Rome on September 23, 63 BC. He was given the name Gaius Octavius, however, he would not keep this name for long. His father, who shared his name, came from a respectable although undistinguished family and was governor of Macedonia. In terms of his rise to power, Octavian’s most important immediate family member was his mother, Atia, who was the niece of Julius Caesar, who would soon be Rome’s greatest and most successful general and Dictator. When Octavian was four years old, his father died so he spent most of his childhood with his stepfather Lucius Marcius Philippus. When he was 15 he was elected to the College of Pontiffs where Caesar requested that Octavius join his staff for hi campaign in Africa. Although he didn’t go to Africa with Caesar, the following year, he attempted to join Caesar in Spain to fight the forces of Pompey, however he fell ill and couldn’t go. When he finally recovered, he sailed to meet Caesar, only to be shipwrecked, however this did not stop Octavius, he traveled across hostile territory to Caesar’s camp, which greatly impressed Caesar. Octavius joined Caesar on the return home in which Caesar secretly changed his will to make Octavian his successor. On 44 BC, Caesar was assassinated, and his will revealed that Caesar had adopted his great-nephew Octavius as his son, making him the heir to the thrown. This meant that Octavian’s name was to be changed to Gaius Julius Caesar. When Octavian returned to Rome, he found it being led by Mark Antony and Aemilius Lepidus. Octavian failed to convince Marc Antony to hand over Caesar’s assets and documents, however he was recruited into the senate and when Antony left Rome to take command in northern Italy, Octavian made war on Antony who was defeated and fled to Gaul. Now the senate had lost control over Octavian who marched on Rome and forced the senate to accept him as consul. Three months later, he completely cut off the senates’ power. In 40 BC, stated by the Treaty of Brundisium. The Roman Empire was to be divided between Marc Antony and Octavian, Marc Antony taking the east and Octavian taking the west. Eventually, Octavian became angry with Antony, and read his will to the public, which promised large inheritances to his children but also said that if he die, his body be moved to Egypt.

Theoretical Application

There is a criminal phenomenon that has been under continuous study by criminologists and has also pre-occupied American society, â€Å"criminal gangs†. When the general public thinks of the term â€Å"gangs†, the thought inevitably evokes feelings and images predominately associated with criminal activity that aids to the dilapidation of their neighborhoods and social settings. The term gangs and the crime associated are often viewed differently by the media and law enforcement personnel and even more distinctively by politicians. There is little debate that understanding what a gang is or is not facilitates the identification of variant types of gangs and subsequently aids in developing policies and tactics for communities to address their gang problems. These problems associated with the criminal phenomenon of gang activity range from petty thefts and graffiti â€Å"tagging† to drug use, distribution and homicide. The ailments to a neighborhood caused and/or associated with gang activity are of a social disorder that is no longer considered a localized issue. Gangs have become broadly interconnected with separate chapters across the United States and even have a presence transnationally. Gangs are a criminological problem because the dilemmas of gang activity have grown beyond large cities and urban environments and found a home also in smaller cities and suburban life. According to an FBI study, criminal gangs commit as much as 80 percent of the crime in many communities and gang members are migrating from urban areas to suburban and rural communities, expanding the gangs’ influence in most regions (2009 National Gang Threat Assessment). The various criminal street gangs in the United States range from small neighborhood-oriented petty units to much larger international and commercial gang oriented establishments. Gangs present a nationwide problem and the related issues are magnified by the continuous recruitment of local youth into gangs which are transnational and internationally based. Many suburban and rural communities are facing an increase in criminal acts attributed to gangs and their immediate influence on the social structure of the neighborhoods they reside in. Los Angeles is one such city that has long been plagued by the presence of criminal gangs. In 1993, gang members were involved as suspects or victims in about one-third of all homicides and historically, between 1980 and 1989, the homicide rate in Los Angeles was more than double the rate for the State of California (Meehan and O’Carroll). Los Angeles has been a focal point for many studies conducted regarding the phenomenon of gang activity. As noted, the gang phenomenon has been a focal study of criminological researchers. Various research theories have been employed in an attempt to identify social origins and the implications of gang activity. There is an abundance of facts that pertain to gang crime and the related byproduct of this type of criminal activity. But what are the explanation(s) as to how and why these facts became measurable and accountable? In other words, what are possible causes and explanations to the creation and survival of gangs and its members respectively? Many different scientific theories could be employed to propose answers about the relationships between observable events in gang phenomena. To provide an explanation to this phenomenon, a review of gang related issues found in Celeste Freman’s â€Å"G-Dog and the Homeboys† is coupled with the contention that such issues are the result of a cultural imbalance between the socially accepted pursuit of wealth and the less desired value of hard work, honesty, and education. Such an explanation is most appropriately found when applying the criminology based Strain Theory. This theory is derived from exploring the social structures in America and the accompanying opportunities available to pursue socially supported norms like the pursuit of wealth or status, often referred to as the American Dream. Ultimately, the result on individuals to acquire wealth or status creates undue stress propelling some to seek results through non-institutionalized means. This is a practice and a sub-culture that is readily accepted within gang phenomenon. The Strain Theory, originally presented by Robert K. Merton, has been used in various studies to support the premise that the American Dream concept and the pressure to achieve some resemblance of it serves as a causation of crime. It is not uncommon to see reporting of individuals resulting to unconventional means like crime to obtain what they cannot through conventional means. The Strain Theory makes an effort to justify factors found in low-income and industrial neighborhoods. It presents these factors as barriers to opportunity and directly attributes them to crime and the formation of gangs. The Strain Theory is part of the Positivist School of Criminology thought and supposes actions are observable and not socially created. Strain Theory consists of elements from social disorganization and an individual lack of norms, termed â€Å"anomie†. The social disorganization and anomie theories are derived from different research platforms but all have common arguments. The proposed thought is that the less there exists of solidarity, cohesion, or integration within a group, community or society, the higher will be crime, the rate of crime, and deviance (Akers and Sellers). What drives someone to commit such unconventional acts in pursuit of wealth or status? Merton’s position concerning an individual pursuing non-institutional means is derived from a person’s â€Å"attitude† toward the pursuit of cultural goals such as wealth and status. Merton presented manners that an individual may resort to from undergoing strain caused by the limited access to resources needed to obtain these institutional goals. The way an individual responds or the adaptive manners is dependent on their acceptance or rejection toward social goals, the American Dream and status, and the opportunity available to attain them. Not having available resources and opportunity will directly attribute to gang association and membership recruitment. A study of Strain Theory regarding attributing factors of gang membership identified the stigma of poverty status to have a positive effect on gang membership and may even aid to the perception of blocked opportunities (Vowell and May). A neighborhood that is ripe with social problems, low income housing, and little opportunity offers a higher potential for juvenile delinquency and assimilation of like minds such as gangs. Evidence to this is noted in the study of Strain Theory which found evidence that living in a neighborhood where social problems and physical deterioration were perceived to be a problem and was positively related to delinquency. Additionally, this study noted that general strain leads to delinquent involvement by weakening the conventional social bond and strengthening the unconventional bond with delinquent peers (Paternoster and Mazerolle). This presents the likelihood of individuals finding similar non-institutional means to obtain social goals from gang membership. Gangs do offer knowledge of non-institutional means and in many cases offer the peer support to an individual pursing what they desire, often it is a derivative of the American Dream. The Strain Theory provides a plausible reason why most crime is fixated in certain areas of urban cities, supported by the assertion that social culture and structure must be weighed as equal parts. The theory by Merton emphasizes that society places more importance on the success of an individual achieving wealth or status than on the socially accepted means by which this success is obtained. All classes of American society have been inundated through the media, politics, education, and marketing that success is the most important social value. Yet, the opportunities to attain this success are limited in the lower-class of society and thus provide a breeding ground for gang creation and advancement. When these opportunities are pursued, they are expected to be sought out in truthful and socially accepted ways. Unfortunately for our society, more emphasis is placed on obtaining the American Dream and the success of wealth than the manner in which it is accomplished. There is a dominant belief in the American Dream or social status and this belief is one that encompasses all classes of society. However, equal opportunity, the socially recognized need to attain the American Dream or status is unfortunately distorted among the lower-class of society. There is an outcry from these citizens who consider resources available to capture their goals as distorted when compared to other classes creating a springboard of stress. Even though all citizens of our society believe and measure their success by obtaining some portion of the wealth and status, some are not provided the standard resources to meet the expectations demanded to acquire it. Building on the strain theory, Albert K. Cohen pursued a position where male deviant behavior was in response to â€Å"blocked opportunities† and was an assimilating attribute of the lower-class subculture produced from social structure strain (Vowell, & May). The deviance provoked behavior was due to the inability to gain social prominence. This is similar to Merton’s variation of Strain. However, Merton centered on material wealth rather than a position in society or status. Middle-class citizens are accepted and supported in work and education environments because of they typically are able to meet social expectations required of them for status or of wealth. Unlike the middle-class, the lower-class populous finds it difficult to meet socially accepted standards due to the limited access to available resources and result to deviant behavior. This is often materialized by the formation and acceptance into the social subculture of gangs where the rejected find common ideology and share in access to unconventional means such as crime. It is in this subculture of gangs that the unconventional measure to achieve a certain status or respect is found. The Strain Theory proposed that the deviant assimilation is carried out by identifying the opportunities that are also legal means, not just the illegal ones. In essence, the premise is made that an individual is not driven to conduct criminal behavior solely by the singular desire to acquire wealth or status but also there is a learned behavior of criminal means and acts derived from the social environment they are reside in and ultimately exposed to. This can be expounded on within a gang environment producing criminal acts of different sorts to foster the pursuit of status and wealth. As mentioned, the issues of gang activity in Los Angeles present an overwhelming constraint on positive social development brought on by criminal activity. The criminal acts carried out by the likes of gang members within the Los Angeles neighborhoods highlighted in G-Dog and the Home Boys are a result of the absent non-supportive family structure needed. Employment opportunities, when provided by Father Greg (G-Dog), are ridden with social hurdles. To even pursue the opportunity, they must first escape beyond the concrete island their gang resides on and â€Å"trespass† into those areas marked as enemy territory. Such enormous impediments can seem overwhelming and result in an individual retreating into the fold of his fellow â€Å"homies†, dismissing the potential of an opportunity. This hurdle is secondary to the perceived reprisal waiting in the wings of the Los Angeles Police Department and the subsequent sentiment fellow gang members have of abandonment. The various gangs, primarily Clarence Street Locos, viewed by Fremont over the shoulder of Father Greg all were comprised of members who were predominately juvenile, from a broken or deteriorating family structure, out of or were recoiling from school and education, jobless and possessed little belief in the prospect of a future without the support of their fellow gang members. Whether the East L. A. Dukes, Capones, The Mob Crew, East Coast Crips or another Latino or African American gang, the predominant make-up of its membership were part of an unskilled and poor community searching for a sense of belonging and a way for survival. Members like Dreamer, Turtle, Ghost, Droopy, Ghost, Oso, Silent, etc. , all battled a daily routine of gang life in and out of the projects. Members of the community of gang ridden neighborhoods of Pico Gardens and Aliso Village had little to offer its inhabitants. These predominately Latino immigrant ommunities possessed little in way of educational or employment opportunities. There were little options for jobs and instead the community youth found themselves marketing the gang arenas for membership. Most of the Clarence Street gang members became role models for their siblings and continuously offered â€Å"veterano† advice for participating in gang life. This type of life was all that seemed to be obtainable, due in n o small part to the lack of opportunities. This then became the only way they knew to get what they wanted in life. The lack of opportunity is magnified without a solid role model and father figure in their home. This was a constant variable throughout the insights collected by Freeman provided by individual gang members. When there was a father figure present, it was one that showed little compassion or even interest into their life. The lifestyle as a gang member was the opportunity that was available to them and is what filled the void of family and acceptance. Their daily struggle is evident in the simple but deadly decisions they had to make; visible in determining a roundabout path to a party or through an enemy’s territory. The homicides that occur, the decisions to â€Å"hit back†, the dishonorable choices made when confronted by another gang, the fear of police, the need to find employment, the hopelessness of education, the constrained choices to sleep in cars or homeless shelters, etc. , all are attributing factors of stress that result from a lack of opportunity when pursuing a life of normalcy. â€Å"Gangs come into existence and flourish because the needs of the young people in a neighborhood or culture or family are not being met. The gang, in essence, fills the void† (Gardner). The American Dream and the need for status present the same â€Å"needs† often sought after by unconventional means through gang activity. No doubt Father Greg’s commitment witnessed by his numerous attempts to help over and over again through mental and economic support created opportunities otherwise unavailable. Not to mention his eventual creation of Homeboy Industries and the overwhelming economic advantage it offered in reducing negative employment and neighborhood induced stress. Gang Phenomenon is a socially adaptive instrument that offers the mechanism to fill the needs, such as the wealth and status, of the deprived juveniles. The gang and its members discussed in G-Dog and the Home Boys sought nontraditional means that were socially unacceptable but filled the emptiness caused by the lack of opportunities in the lower-class communities they resided in. As long as there is apparent or perceived blocked opportunities and unequal resources in the lower-class, gangs and their related criminal activity will be a continuing issue for America. BIBLIOGRAPHY Akers, Robert, & C. S Sellers. (2009). â€Å"Criminological Theories, Introduction, Evaluation and Application†. New York: Oxford University Press. Fremon, Celeste. (2004) G-Dog and the Homeboys: Father Greg Boyle and the Gangs of East Los Angeles. University of New Mexico Press. Gardner, Sandra. (1992). Street Gangs in America. Franklin Watts, New York, NY. Meehan, Patrick and Patrick O’Carroll. (1992). â€Å"Gangs, Drugs, and Homicide in Los Angeles. † American Journal of Diseases of Children 146. Paternoster, Raymond and Paul Mazerolle. (1994). General Strain Theory and Delinquency: â€Å"A Replication and Extension†. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. Volume 31. The National Gang Intelligence Center. (2009). Product No. 2009-M0335-001. â€Å"National Gang Threat Assessment. † Vowell, Paul and David May. (2000). Another Look at Classic Strain Theory: â€Å"Poverty Status, Perceived Blocked Opportunity, and Gang Membership as Predictors of Adolescent Violent Behavior†. Sociological Inquiry. Volume 70.

American Culture vs. Jewish Culture: Success Stems from Beyond Marriage

To the modern married woman, nothing assures her of success in her career more that the support she receives from her husband in the pursuit of her career goals. While this kind of support is not always assured, the freedom to pursue her goals without any limitations from her husband works just as well.In fact, women have proved that they can multitask between marriage and a successful career. The medieval idea that a woman is only useful for reproduction purposes once she gets married does not hold water anymore. Through the ages, women have proven their resilience at defying all odds and proving to the word that they are worth more than the domestic roles they were given at marriage.Throughout history, the role of married women as wives, mothers and housekeeper was of much importance both to them and to the family unit.   In Judaism, these roles received respect and were the basis for the exemption of women from time barred commandments (Jones, M. 1999). Accordingly, the role tha t the woman played was given overriding significance to fulfilling commandments.Anti-feminists have over time used the exemption rule that Jewish women enjoyed to state that in actual sense the rule was a prohibition that women should not perform commandment. Although they are the epitome of feminine liberation, many people may not know that Jewish women have overtime fought for their liberation by quoting phrases that favor their position in the society from the  Ã‚   Talmud (Jones, M. 1999).Such rules allow them to perform commandments that are not time restricted. However, the detractors argue that even though they are recognized, as worth some services, they are not as highly rated as their male counterparts. To this, the women argue that the role a wife does not revolve around the synagogue. Many women hold this role in high regards and as a basis of fighting their critics.To understand the situation that women had to contend with through the centuries, one needs to look at t he evolution of marriage through the times.In the older days, marriage for women was out of lack of a better thing they could engage their time in all areas of life. Women were disadvantaged and never gained the skills required to lead successful lives without the support of the socially advantaged male figure.In most cases, women had no control over certain like education, as their roles were purely reserved for domestic duties. Early in life, young girls were taught that their sole purpose was marriage and child bearing (Gordis, D.H. 2008).When they were ripe of age, and considering that, the society had created a dependant mentality in them, the women were under pressure to get a suitable husband and get married. Ideally, the man was supposed to provide for the woman and any dependants that resulted from the relationship.The woman’s social standing was so low such that they would be used to secure business transactions. Accordingly, the fathers were at liberty to sell thei r daughters to whoever pleased them, whether the woman liked the man they were being sold off to or not.The 17th century however had better things for women. They begun to exert more power to the men and consequently demanded for more freedoms.They begun to resist marriage through coercion and instead put their personal happiness beyond  Ã‚   the pressure from family and the society. Though the start was shaky, the wars that hit America in 1775 and 1812 led to the rise of a more liberal group of women,   who took the roles that their husbands and still brought food to the table as well as handling their regular domestic chores.It has always been a common view for women to be seen as the source of human life- something they take pride in. The problem is that with this view come other negative thoughts too.Good examples are thoughts expressed by Thomas Aquinas, a theologian in the 13th century who said that men can be assisted by fellow men in other things except in conception. Fo r this reason, he referred to women as men’s helpmate and defined her unique role as conception.A Latin Church founder in the 4th century, St. Jerome also cast demeaning aspersion to women just like Thomas Aquinas did. To Jerome however, women were the devil’s gate. In fact, his sentiments were so string that he believed that women were the only way to wickedness and thus to him they were no more than perilous objects that men had to be wary of (Hooker, R. 1996).Naturally, women are considered the weaker sex, a fact that continued to perpetuate their low position in society. Because they were not as masculine as their male counterparts, they were relegated domestic chores such as milking cows, tending the children, drawing water and washing clothes.Men were oblivious of the fact that the energy required to do the collective household chores was even more than some of the hard labor than would do in the fields.   The psychological tolerance that women developed while attending to such chores was to benefit them years later  Ã‚   when the oppression against them by men became too much to bear.The â€Å"woman’s place is in the home† stereotype is a result of their biological role as birth givers. Before the 16th century, women did not express themselves in a way to portray that they were tired of the status quo. Instead, they submissively obeyed everything that the male figures in their lives would tell them to do. These male figures could be anybody from their fathers, husbands, brothers or cousins.The American CultureWomen present in the colonial America –whether black, natives or Hispanic- all had one common characteristic; they all obeyed the dictates of their husbands, fathers, brothers or masters.   Ã‚  It was not until later when British Settlers enlighten the view of these women and by indicating to them that men did not necessarily have to be rulers over them.A point in the case of John Locke, an English philosoph er   Ã‚  who was also renowned as an enlightenment thinker   and played a   major role in informing the American women that they had   individual identities   and needed to   care for ‘the self’ Shultz, S.K and Tishler W.P. 2003, pg 45).The American culture was such that a woman had no property rights. They could not sue, nor be sued and had no right to vote, divorce or speak on behalf of the family unit. It was until the 19th century that women gained rights to divorce and vote.The right to vote was granted to them through the passing of the 19th amendment in 1919. Eleven years earlier, women’s efforts to have a day set in their honor, which they wanted to name Mother’s day, had been rejected by the senate on the grounds that the day would demean motherhood (Shultz, S.K and Tishler W.P. 2003 pg52).The American Revolution which lasted for the better half of the 18th century was an eye opener for most women. One of the outstanding factors is tha t women’s roles at home changed. This because they were required to instill thoughts of patriotism to their children during a time when the husbands were out fighting the Britons.The absence of a male figure at home also contributed to more liberal wife-husband relationship. When the economic fortunes took a turn for the worse, women invariably took jobs formally reserved for men to earn extra money for household use. In rare cases, they would run the family businesses (Hartman, M.1996 pg 44).Surprisingly though, the little gains that American   women had   made during this time only worsened   men subordination towards them especially   because   they figured that women were threatening their roles as the head of household. Worse still, the laws saw to the disenfranchising and subordination of women both socially and legally (Lewis 2000).