Indigenous Australians

Indigenous Australians Introduction Indigenous Australians are scattered across the nation. As of 2006, there are around 517,000 indigenous Australians living in the country out of a total population of around 21 million (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2006). Because of the variety of climate, vegetation and availability of resources in various parts of Australia, indigenous Australians usually move about in bands for protection and mobility. According to the Encyclopedia Brittanica (1980, p.428) this pattern of nomadic existence basically did not change until the arrival of European settlers beginning in 1788. The subsequent interaction and eventual conflict between the two cultures caused major changes in the indigenous Australians culture. Their social organisations were eroded primarily due to population shifts and the attempt to assimilate them into Western society. The latter include the controversial adoption methods when thousands of indigenous Australian children were taken away from their families to be edu cated in Western style schools during the 19th century. Aborigines were also forced to flee constant European influx into their homelands, marked by clashes during the â€Å"pacification campaign† of the 1880s. (Encyclopedia Brittanica 1980, p.429) Beginning in 1965, the Australian government eventually changed this policy to integration in a multi-ethnic commonwealth. This was in response to protests by human rights activists and the indigenous Australians themselves complaining against centuries-long discrimination by European settlers. From the 1970s onwards, the Australian government had given Aborigines more self determination rights in governing their affairs especially those among living in indigenous communities. However, despite the granting of more rights to indigenous Aborigines, many experts pointed that social problems such as unemployment, alcoholism and suicide rates still remain a primary concern among the indigenous Australians. This is connected to the fact that many indigenous Australians have migrated to cities especially since the 1970s to look for job opportunities Taylor (2006, p3). General concept of kinship Indigenous Australians, either from both inland and coastal areas have three main features characterizing their social organizations and culture: food gathering tribes are small and mostly depend on gathering-hunting activities, b) members must cooperate with each other for survival and c.) religion plays an important role in the lives of indigenous Australians (Encyclopedia Brittanica 1980, p.424). It is generally agreed upon by anthropologists that at the macro-level, the social structure of indigenous Australians, before the coming of Europeans, was based on the following in descending order: tribe, moieties, semi-moieties, sections, sub-sections, and clans. Anthropological studies have concluded that indigenous Australians use this distinction of tribes into sub-groups as a means to govern marriage and social interaction. At the micro-level, indigenous Aborigines classify themselves into local descent groups and hordes which each indigenous Australian identified himself with at the local level. Descent groups are formed by a grouping of individuals claiming patrilineal descent from a common ancestor and practicing exogamous marriages, Hordes, on the other hand, are formed by individuals who gather together for a specific â€Å"business† purpose (Encyclopedia Britannica 1980, 428). Kinship has been defined in various ways by anthropologists. Goudelier, (1998 as cited in Dousett 2001) termed kinship is a â€Å"huge field of social and mental realities stretching between two poles.† In between, Goudelier added, kinship covers abstract and concrete concepts: the abstract aspect covers the various rules and regulations covering interpersonal relationships. As for the concrete aspect, kinship covers the titles used in referring to persons connected to kinship relationships. Meanwhile, Stone (1997 as cited in Dousett 2001) describes kinship as the â€Å"recognition of relationships† between persons according to descent or marriage. Tonkinson (1991 as cited in Dousett 2001) finds kinship as a wide network of relationships, no two of which are related to each other. Dousett (2002) termed kinship as the â€Å"set of norms, rules, institutions and cognitive recognitions† used in referring to inborn or future social relationships of a person and is ad dressed through a specific â€Å"biological idiom† Unlike in the Western concept, kinship among indigenous Australians extends beyond an individuals connection with blood relatives. Tonkinson (1991 cited in Dousett (2001) added that kinship is important in small societies such as those of the indigenous Australians because it defines interpersonal behavior among individuals, compliance of which is essential for a groups survival. Kinship networks also play a role in resource sharing among indigenous Australians. There is an inherent tradition among them that each individual have to share their resources with each other especially in times of need. Schwab and Liddle (1997) pointed out that this is quantified by limitations on when an individual may share or may refuse to share depending on the sharers capacity to give. But both the sharer and the receiver must keep in mind the social implications of their actions on their clans kinship ties, Schwab and Liddle added (1997). Dousett (2002) also mentioned that Aboriginal concept of kinsh ip is different from the Western concept. While the â€Å"Euro-American† concept of kinship is based on direct lineage of an individual to other persons within his community, by contrast indigenous Australians consider kinship also covers relationships based on business transactions. In addition, indigenous Australian kinship serves also as a social control because it also defines how an individual plays a role in society in relation with other members even those who are not of his same lineage. In fact, familial terms (â€Å"father,† â€Å"mother†) can also refer to other older members of the descent group, or clan which an individual may belong. However, kinship terms serves not only as titles for respect but also serves as â€Å"behavioral signals which mark what an individual can or cannot do with regard to personal relationships and expectations of sexual access. This means kinship terms are a vital part in determining the marriage and socialization of ind ividual young members In addition these terms also signify which person can be considered as a spouse or affine (a relative by marriage). Doulett cites Henry Lewis Morgan, an American lawyer-anthropologist, explanation on how indigenous Australian societies kinship systems work. Morgan (1877, 1871 in Doulett 2000) had earlier described in the 19th century that indigenous Australian kinship systems are classificatory. This is because Australian Aborigines consider all persons within a community as related to each other in various ways. Morgan also said that the Australian Aborigines kinship system reflects the initial stages of evolution changes in human society. From the banding together of two or more individuals, this eventually grew into a tribal organization where intermarriage was common, toward the eventual development of a city state. In this evolutionary phase, the Aboriginal kinship system was in the second stage. Socialization, social control: Anthropologists have mentioned that kinship restriction and rules are already visible even during childhood socialization. Aborigine parents train children to socialize with fellow age-group members, and at the same time train them already in the ways of the tribe (e.g. food gathering and hunting.) Young girls went with their mothers to collect food, while young boys were compelled to learn hunting by their own. However, there are certain restrictions in how the children interact with other persons. For instance, brothers and sisters would play separately from each other, while â€Å"mothers-in-law† and â€Å"sons in law† would not play together. (the latter would apply when a young man groomed to marry a female is compelled to live in the camp of his pairs family. ) (Encyclopedia Brittanica 1980, p.426). In terms of authority, leadership is based on the scope of an elders kinship network. Hence, for more complex matters, such as arbitration in disputes, elders of a clan gather together to discuss and reach a consensus over these issues. (Encyclopedia Brittanica 1980, p.427). However, kinship systems do not restrict social mobility when it comes to social classes or strata. While there is a hierarchy where young Aborigines have to pass as they learn various skills, indigenous Australian society as a whole allows individuals to excel in religious and economic affairs primarily through their own efforts and skills. (Encyclopedia Brittanica 1980, p.427). Kinship and marriage Marriage among indigenous Australians cements the role of kinship as more than just linking personal relationships between and among members of a moietie, clan or tribe. It serves also as a kind of social negotiation between one unit with another on virtually all social matters ranging from arranging future marriages between the clans members and transaction of barter trades. Marriage between two individuals also reaffirms ties between groups which already have preordained tasks and obligations even before the marriage is consummated formally. Indigenous Australians have also used marriage to compel the other clan to provide spouses for future marriages. This may explain why the practice in some moiety to compel its members to marry a member from another particular moiety. Houseman (2007) had said in his study that â€Å"Marriage is a product of social constructs.† To elaborate further, marriage is also linking other individuals together by virtue of linking the bride and the groom in a socially sanctified wedding ritual. These individuals, because they are related either to the bride and groom, are by implication, now related also through affinity. This linkage is based on what anthropologists have enunciated as the intertwining of kinship ties and marriage ties. With regard to this remark on marriage, Houseman explored in his study how indigenous Australians construct and maintain marriage networks as a form of promoting social stability among themselves. In his study, Houseman theorized that indigenous Australians practice marriage as a confluence of various social and personal factors and that marriages are interlinked through a circular pattern from core marriages to outer marriages. He also distinguishes some marriage determinants, which include: â€Å"deliminated marriage network,† â€Å"core of deliminated marriage network,† â€Å"matrimonial community,† and â€Å"connobium.† Houseman (2007) defines deliminated marriage network as a web of relationships extracted from a larger grouping and is formed by the confluence of tribe-and clan-based perspectives on marriage. This means that from a particular community or clan, there is a specific network from which all persons related to the couple to be married are connected in some way. On the other hand, â€Å"core of deliminated marriage networks comprises of genealogical circuits of the â€Å"reconnected marriage,† meaning these are lineages among individuals which have been re-linked with the marriage of two individual Aborigines. The determinant â€Å"matrimonial community pertains to the set of non- intermarrying individuals who are related to each other through core marriages. Springing from this concept is the connobium which refers to the connection of non-intermarrying individuals to each other through multiple core marriages. However, Aboriginal moieties and clans do not intermarry just because they have to maintain close ties with each other Houseman (2007). Evidence suggested by previous research suggest that moieties and clans intermarry with other tribal sub-units because that these groups can be relied upon in maintaining the land, guarding it from intrusion by other groups, are able to share knowledge about the land, and that they can perform certain rituals according to specific occasions. Kinship after colonization; contemporary times The onslaught of modern ideas due to colonization and Westernization has wrought major changes in indigenous Australians culture. Experts noted that the destruction or even at least alteration of kinship networks has left many individual Aborigines grappling with culture shock Those who may not have been able to adjust well to the realities of modern Australian life have resorted to alcoholism, and suicide as desperate attempts to escape their problems, studies have shown. Studies by Daly and Smith (1997) and Hunter and Gray(1999) cited figures showing that indigenous Australians suffer higher rates of poverty and at the lower end of the income gap with non-Aboriginal Australians even as recent as the 1990s. One factor which affected the kinship systems of Australian indigenous peoples is the fact that many if not most of them already been intermixed with European blood. In addition they may have been heavily influenced by the Western culture that they encounter in the cities. As mentioned early in this essay, beginning in the 19th century many Aborigines have either moved from their homelands in search of jobs or were forced to flee European incursion into their lands. In fact until the 1990s, many Australian cities saw continued influx of indigenous Australians even as these cities also reported net migration losses.(Taylor, 2006 p.63) Hence many of the indigenous Australians were either the products of interracial marriage or had intermarried into European families (as in the case of African-Americans in the United States during the slave trade-era.). In addition as the indigenous Australians moved in the cities they had to deal with a different culture system where the emphasis is on individual excellence. But since they are away from their ancestral lands, they also lacked support systems, both in terms of providing material and emotional assistance, whenever they encounter problems in finding jobs, places to live. etc. Another more profound determinant in the alteration of Aborigine social systems is the compelled enrollment of Aborigine children to schools (especially the ones who were adopted by White families). Because the curriculum of these schools are centered on European culture, many Aborigine children tend to be assimilated by intensely studying European-style subjects and the English language. As a result, they have to uproot themselves from the traditional way of life and culture that they had experienced in their tribes. A Portrait of Life and Self Destruction Layton (2007) revealed many aspects on modern-day problems at the end of the 20th century in his review of the book Aboriginal Suicide is Different: A Portrait of Life and Self Destruction. While reviewing the 2005 book by Colin Tatz, Layton discussed some factors behind Aborigines suicides even though medical research concluded that there were no considerable patterns of mental illnesses among them distinctive from Australias general population. Layton added that overall rates for unemployment, drug abuse, and alcoholism were similar for both Aboriginal and non Aboriginal populations, so this would not factor likely as the root cause behind the suicide rates among Aborigines. He said that this may be explained by the fact that during the 1980s, the social organization of many Aboriginal tribes and clans had been destroyed by the intrusion of modern culture and also by government policies of allowing Aborigines to depend on state sponsored welfare. Layton, quoting Tatz as suggesting that Aborigines be given more literacy training, â€Å"personal empowerment,† highlighting positive roles of Aborigines in community development etc . Meanwhile Wooten (2002, p. 78) believed that the reason behind continued poverty among Aborigines is that the policy of self-determination, enunciated in the 1980s, has only worsened the dependency of many indigenous Australians on the federal and state governments. He recommends that the government instead concentrate on training Aborigines in adjusting to the realities and problems of modern living. To explain his point, Wooten used the metaphor of prison camp to highlight Australias situation on Aborigines According to the anthropology professor, while the prisoners were supposed to have been freed since they federal government grant self determination to them in the 1980s, the policy may have proved to be a motivation for many â€Å"prisoners (ie Aborigines) to remain inside the â€Å"prison.† What he suggests is that he government train the Aborigines to eventually get out of the â€Å"prison.† In addition, he commented that organizations founded by the government and private sector to help alleviate the widespread poverty among Aborigines should a.) be judged according to their performance and not because no indigenous Australians were reportedly sitting inside; while b) their shortcomings in supporting the indigenous Australians should not be overseen With renewed attempts among many Aborigines to reclaim their heritage, aside from seeking damages due to the â€Å"assimilation† policy,† there also arises the need for Aborigines to once again study their clan or tribes kinship systems. Doulet (2002) also mentioned that there is a need for indigenous Australians to know more about the kinship systems of their particular tribe or clan (whatever may be the case), especially if they want to regain ancestral land which were seized by European settlers during the 19th century. This is because modern legal jurisprudence demands that claimants must know about the size and legal details of the property in dispute for them to be able to back up their claims stronger. Based from the findings of these three anthropology experts, this writer opines that a) European colonisation and the subsequent implementation of the â€Å"assimilation† policy did considerably damage the indigenous Australians kinship systems Because each tribes kinship system had a relatively small scope covering only certain number of moieties, groups, clans, these were not able to withstand changes wrought by the arrival of the Europeans: population losses, expulsion from ancestral lands, introduction of new kinds of work, Europeanization. As we have seen, the indigenous Australians kinship system relies mainly on personalistic ties between clans, as shown in the use of marriage to bind two separate groups. On the other hand, it is to the credit of the Australian government that major policy changes have been made with regard to indigenous Australians. From the 1965 decree allowing Aborigines to choose if they want to be assimilated to the 1980s order giving self determination among them until the present day system of training them for capacity development through government funded organizations, the federal and state governments have been trying to make up for two centuries of racial discrimination. This writer agrees, however, that the Aborigines themselves must also help themselves in integrating into Australian society. They may actively participate in the abovementioned training programs in order to develop their skills. Or they eventually join the organisations running those programs so that they can have a greater voice in decision-making processes which concern their welfare. But it is important also that the Aborigines, especially the educated ones, should revisit the kinship networks of their clans to see if they can still be readjusted in line with contemporary developments. This is because while the indigenous Australians are, theoretically, integrated into a multi-ethnic society, still they have a unique culture which they cannot discard in the name of cosmopolitanism. Conclusion This essay has shown the various factors influencing indigenous Australians kinship systems, how the latter affect the social and economic aspects of daily living and how these has changed in the past centuries This essay has also pointed out that both the federal government and the indigenous Australians play important roles in mitigating damages caused by colonisation on indigenous Australian kinship networks. Primary References: 1.Book 1980 Australian Aboriginal Cultures chapter in Encyclopedia Brittanica, pp.424-429 2.Journals Layton, R., 2007. Aboriginal Suicide is Different: A Portrait of Life and Self Destruction. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, vol.13. Houseman, M.1997. Marriage Networks among Australian Aboriginal Populations Australian Aboriginal Studies, vol.1997. Wooten H. 2002. Indigenous Futures: Choices and Development for Aboriginer and Islander Australian Aboriginal Studies, vol. 2002, p.78. Websites Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2009 Population Distribution, Aboriginal and Torres Straits Islanders Australians [Online] Available at: http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[emailprotected]/ProductsbyCatalogue/14E7A4A075D53A6CCA2569450007E46C?OpenDocument [Accessed 25 July 2009]. Daly, A. Smith, D 1997 Indigenous sole parents: Invisible and disadvantaged [Online] Available at: http://www.anu.edu.au/caepr/Publications/DP/1997DP134.php [Accessed 26 July 2009]. Dousset, L. 2002 Introduction to Australian Indigenous Social Organizations (Hitting the headlines article). [Online] Available at: http://www.ausanthrop.net/research/kinship/kinship2.php[Accessed 25 July 2009]. Dousset, L. 2001 What is Kinship?: A collection of quotes (Hitting the headlines article). [Online] Available at: http://www.ausanthrop.net/research/kinship/kinship2.php[Accessed 25 July 2009]. Hunter, B., Gray, M 1999 Income fluctuations over the lifecycle: A cohort analysis of indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, 1986-96 [Online] Available at: http://www.anu.edu.au/caepr/Publications/DP/1999DP183.php [Accessed 26 July 2009]. Schwab, J., Liddle, L (ed.)1997 Principles and Implications of Aboriginal Sharing [Online] Available at: http://www.anu.edu.au/caepr/Publications/briefs/1997IB17.php [Accessed 26 July 2009]. Taylor, J. 2006 Population and diversity: Policy implications of emerging indigenous demographic trends [Online] Available at: http://www.anu.edu.au/caepr/Publications/DP/2006DP283.php [Accessed 26 July 2009].

Best Day of my Life Essay -- essays research papers personal narrative

Throughout life I have had many memorable events. The memorable times in my life vary from being the worst times in my life and some being the best, either way they have become milestones that will be remembered forever. The best day of my life was definitely the day that I received my drivers’ license. This day is one of the most memorable because of the feelings I had when I received it, the opportunities that were opened up for me and the long lasting benefits that I received from it that still exist today.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Getting my drivers’ license was an intense feeling that I will never forget. Just knowing that I had a drivers’ license made me feel so free, as free as a bird flying in the open sky with no real place to go, just a desire to be free. I felt like I could do anything. I had new responsibilities like most adults, and I came to a realization that I had lived through one of the most important events in the process of growing up. This event opened up many possibilities for me such as interests in cars, driving skill improvement, and freedom.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  With my drivers’ license I could pick up my friends without my parents around, making the friend experience a whole lot better. I could go on dates without the embarrassment of my parents driving me. On any given day I could do anything I wanted because I could drive. I could feel the textures of the roads, smell the fresh air when my windows were down, see the beautiful terrain that I drove through and I could hear any type...

Emergent Properties of Choice :: Allais Paradox Essays

Emergent Properties of Choice ABSTRACT: Allais' paradox provides a convenient way to demonstrate that the distribution of alternatives we face in a situation of choice may give rise to new factors. These emergent factors may need to influence a one time choice of rational decision-makers, although they should not be taken into account in long reiterative games. I start from a brief presentation of Allais' paradox; yet, I am not primarily concerned with the question how to solve it. The paradox provides a convenient way to demonstrate that distribution of alternatives we face in a situation of choice may give rise to new factors. These emergent properties may need to influence a one time choice of rational decision-makers, although they should not be taken into account in long reiterative games. Let me introduce to you decisiotheoretic emergentism. According to the independence axiom an outcome of the choice shall be neutral if a constant value is added to each alternative. But if we consider the table of preferences presented by Allais this presumption seems intuitively questionable. Y=1 B=10 R=89 g1 M M M g2 0 5M M g3 M M 0 g4 0 5M 0 In the choice between g1 and g2 (where M stands for one million crowns), most people choose g1 over g2, although g2 gives higher expected value. Yet, if we choose between g3 and g4, almost everybody prefers g4 over g3. But the problem may be seen as two identical alternatives g1=g3 and g2=g4 just in the choice between g1 and g2 in column R an outcome of one million crowns has been added to each alternative whereas in the second case the constant added equals zero. These results contradict with the independence axiom. The first solution is to go Savage's way and, after reconsideration, to change one's mind in the g1/g2 choice. But strong intuitiveness of the Allais paradox makes this solution less than attractive. It might seem better to search for some troublesome decisio-theoretic axioms easy to replace. This is the way decision theorists usually go. But they have a problem in finding axioms to be eliminated.

Environmental Protection: Whose concern? Essay

Environmental protection is a multi-faceted issue amid alarming figures of environmental degradation and the growing concerns on global warming and its doomsday consequences. As such, each players within the society: the government, private companies, and individual citizens share the load together. The primary social institution that should care much to address the problem is the government. The government sets the priority direction, and creates strategies, promulgates policies and laws, provides incentives, and supports the private sector on every program to mitigate environmental problems, and protect the remaining undamaged ecological resources. The US is even lauded for its focus â€Å"on cleaning up the most obvious examples of environmental pollution through rigid command and control of industrial and government facilities to reduce end-of-pipe sources of pollution (American Chemical Society, 2008). † The industry is one of the major contributors to environmental problems. Without the efforts of this business sector, the problem would be harder to solve. Rivera & Delmas (2004), however reported that most businesses only employ environmental management systems because they are forced by government regulations and not voluntarily. In the other hand, some concerned business sectors also agree and help government efforts. The energy sector for instance realized that â€Å"for the longer term, the development of economically viable renewable energy sources is a key challenge for Research (Jennings, 2008). † The consumers as the end point in the value chain also share the chunk and encouraged to take actions. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) spelled out a lot of things people can do from proper waste handling and disposal systems, energy saving, and many others (Environmental Protection Agency), and these can be done at home, in office, in the community, and almost every place. There is an urgent need to take action, or else humanity would suffer the consequences. And it has been proven long that all sectors of the society are responsible. The governments take set the tone and take the lead while the other sectors must cooperate to achieve the global environmental management goals. Bibliography American Chemical Society. (2008, September 27). Statement on Federal Government Role in 21st Century Environmental Protection. Retrieved April 1, 2009, from ACS: http://portal. acs. org/portal/fileFetch/C/CSTA_015555/pdf/CSTA_015555. pdf Jennings, J. (2008, February 2). The Role of Business in Environmental Protection. Retrieved April 1, 2009, from China Council for Internaltional Cooperation on Environment and Development: http://www. cciced. org/2008-02/02/content_9638865. htm Rivera, J. , & Delmas, M. (2004). Business and Environmental Protection: An Introduction1. Human Ecology Review, Vol. 11, No. 3 , 230-234.

Is Patriarchy the Main Cause of Gender Inequality?

This view is held by Radical feminists, they believe that patriarchy is society is the reason that women are oppressed and exploited by men, and Marxists for example hold the view that the capitalist system is the reason for the gender inequality. Feminists believe that women are unequal to men, and as a result society benefits men whilst exploiting men. Feminist investigate the effects that this inequality has on women’s power, status, roles and life chances.They believe that gender inequality is socially constructed an example is gender roles; these are taught to children at very young ages and encourage these gender inequalities to become part of society’s norms. The different type of feminists believe different reasons for gender inequality, there are liberal, radical Marxist and postmodern feminists, radical are arguably the most extreme and controversial feminist group. Radical feminist believe patriarchy has been socialised into society making it accepted, this r esults in the unequal gender inequality for women.People in society are taught male patriarchy through education, male dominance is enforced and a masculine view of the world is presented to children, this is shown through the gendered subjects and the teacher treatment of male and female students. They argue that male dominance has become accepted in society so much so that this leads to violence towards women being accepted in the home and on the streets. Radical feminists believe that men exploit and oppress women. They believe that the family plays a significant role in aiding this oppression, as women can be exploited by their male partners through abuse and the additional work they do.However, Marxist criticise radicals for generalising women’s experiences, women’s experiences vary greatly depending on their class, ethnicity and household type. If a women was from a middle class background she is more likely to suffer in the family, as it’s accepted that o nly the man works, bringing greater equality than if they both worked. Radical feminist are critics by liberals for failing to acknowledge any change to gender becoming more equal, for example car insurance since 2012 is now the same amount for both men and women, Radicals are often critiqued for having an ‘outdated’ look on gender inequality.Marxist feminists fundamentally believe unlike Radicals that women’s oppression is strongly linked to the capitalist system. They believe that women are exploited mainly at home and in the workforce, in the home they reproduce the next generation of workers whilst ensuring the stability of the current generation. This is illustrated through Ansleys study, which concluded that women are disadvantaged as they absorb the frustration and anger from husbands who are in turn exploited at work. The Patriarchy ideology present in society enables women to accept the inequality that’s present.Marxist acknowledge that there has been a shift in the male aspect of domestic and child care, however its women who still have to do the majority and are therefore the most disadvantaged. Women are more disadvantaged than men as they form the ‘ reserve labour army’ this means they work at cheaper rates and can be hired and fired much more freely than men, this also leads to women being more likely to partake in part time and shorter hour jobs, this encourages the dependency that women have upon men.However the reserve army of labour fails to acknowledge the gendered nature of jobs, it doesn’t explain why women are the reserve army. Radical feminist argue that Marxist feminists pay too little attention to patriarchy, the main cause of women’s oppression instead focus greatly on the capitalist system which could be seen as completely irrelevant ion terms of women’s inequality. Black feminists highlight that they ignore ethnic minority groups, and like Radicals categorise women’ s experiences into a common group.Postmodern feminists hold the view that there are a wide range of masculinities and felinities to pick and choose from in today’s society, therefore allowing women to choose the lifestyle they lead, this suggest that women don’t suffer they only chose to be unequal if they desire. This also suggests that patriarchal views aren’t necessarily held anymore, and if they are they have subsequently less impact as people can have more choice in society. They also believe that women’s oppression can’t be summed up into one common ground, every circumstance is greatly different.And they acknowledge that there are fundamental differences between women which will inevitably affect the choices they make. They believe that other forms of feminism are outdated and in some cases have a negative effect as they are making women unhappy with their lifestyles, instead of correcting the problems present in society they feel that femin ists particularly Radicals just highlight the problems. They hold the same opinions as Hakim in regards to feminism having a negative rather than positive effect on women.Hakim however believes that feminism has created myths about womens life, and argues like Postmodern feminism that feminism its having a negative effect on women, she believes that patriarchy isn’t the reason for gender inequality and in actual fact gender inequality is less prominent than feminist make it out to be. Hakim accuses feminist of inventing their own myths about women’s work attitudes and behaviour. She found there were five main myths about feminism. Some examples are women employment has been rising, and childcare is the main barrier preventing women competing fully with men, these myths clearly contradict feminist views.She also found that men and women do have different work orientation, and that it shouldn’t necessarily be seen as a negative thing, they just happen to be differ ent. She also believed another myth was that the gender turnover was different, she believes that men and women get paid the same regardless of sex, Marxist would strongly disagree as the women are only the reserve army of labour so therefore don’t earn as much as the breadwinning males. Half of two thirds of women hold traditional gender views, suggesting that overall women’s attitudes to work are weaker than men’s.However Ginn argues Hakims claims are oversimplified, and there are considerable gaps between groups. Women’s attitudes fluctuate and change over time and so the divisions can’t be fixed. Ginn also argues that Hakim also has no convincing explanation, she has just stated the problems not why they occur. Other reasons for women’s attitudes could be shaped by the wider social context; this could be influenced by the patriarchal system. Hakim suggests that women’s attitudes are changing but much slower than feminists think. D elamount also found weakness in Hakims argument, as she based her evidence on only one large scale survey.This presents numerous flaws as it wasn’t over a long period time span and the methods themselves could be incorrect, so the findings were very unlikely to represent the population as a whole. In conclusion, radical feminist believe patriarchy is the main reason for gender inequality. Marxist feminist however see the capitalist system as the reason for gender inequality. Hakim strongly disagrees that patriarchy is the reason for gender inequality and instead argues that childcare prevents women competing with men, particularly in the workplace.

Marketing Myopia Essay

Industries growth has stopped due to the failure of management the top executives, railroad business because they focus on sciences not on the customers. To keep growing industries must focus on customers’ needs and wants then solely on their products. Many companies are endangering their business due to improper defining of their purposes. DuPont, corning and aluminum industry flourished because they were customer oriented. Taking example of Dry cleaning; has reduced in a remarkable way and may sooner be diminished. Grocery stores have been replaced by super markets. There is nothing like a growth industry but there is an expansion that is because the companies organize themselves to create growth opportunities. Self-deceiving cycle has four conditions. 1. Growth is due to increase in population. 2. Believing that there will be no substituent for any major product. 3. Mass production and declining unit cost for output increase. 4. Preoccupation with a product. The belief that increasing customers will increase your business have a negative impact as you will yourself not bother to expand your business. The petroleum industry thinks that there is no competitor as there is no substitute of oil but many refineries have such huge stock of oil that they can be a threat. Firstly the crude oil was greatly demanded as kerosene was used for lamps until the bulb was invented and the heaters were started with coal burns. If the company would have been product oriented the business would be ended but they started refining the crude oil and made uses out of each product of crude oil. Oil has proved to be the strongest growth and millions of barrels is consumed daily. Production pressure to some companies such as advertisement and commercials are sometimes this much great that they try to get aid of it. But in all this we forget marketing and focus on the needs of seller and marketing fulfill the customer need. Industries now spend billions of rupees in consumer preference and fulfilling their ideas out of Chevrolet’s 7000 dealers only 57 provide night maintenance service. Ford invented the assembly line and reduced the cost of production and sold millions of $500 cars. Survival needs a change. Consumer needs change and if a company does not provide it they lose. With the wider perspective the CEOs have to recheck on their vision and the selection of the proper targeted market. This was seems to be successful as the organization was able to find out some opportunities that were initially unseen. This is also helpful in predicting the future progress with the help of business prediction techniques that are currently available. To rise above the myopia one should have his main focus on the strategies and predictive techniques that are used to gain hold on the opportunities. And mainly focus on the customer’s lifetime value. This will maintain the long term profit objectives.

Research and critically discuss the impact of Taylorism and Fordism on Essay

Research and critically discuss the impact of Taylorism and Fordism on contemporary management approaches and practices - Essay Example For instance, one of the limitations of Taylorism is the absence of autonomy and â€Å"lack of flexibility† (Fruijt, 2003, p. 4) which can make jobs become â€Å"repetitive† and â€Å"boring† (Lucey, 2005, p. 65). On the other hand, Fordism is being criticized for being ineffective when managing business organizations during slow economic growth (Amin, 2003). Even though a lot of modern companies have decided to move away from the use of Taylorism and Fordism when managing people, it is assumed that some forms of management practices and approaches that were introduced under the models of Taylorism and Fordism are still very much applicable in today’s management approaches and practices. To help the readers gain a better understanding of the subject matter, the similarities and differences between Taylorism and Fordism will first be tackled followed by critically analyzing the effects of Taylorism and Fordism on the present-day management approaches and practices. The models of Taylorism and Fordism were very much applicable in managing large-scale manufacturing firms back in 1980s (Henderson, 2011, p. 8). Furthermore, both models of Taylorism and Fordism focused on how to increase mass production efficiency (Tatli, 2008; Amin, 2003, p. 6; Fruijt, 2003). Considered as a traditional strategy used in management planning, Fordism introduced the concept of â€Å"just in case† approach (Alfasi & Portugali, 2004; Amin & Tomaney, 1995, p. 206). In line with this, Fordists’ â€Å"just in case† approach is all about stockpiling either parts or finished goods (Waters, 2013, pp. 80 – 81). Likewise, to reduce employees’ turnover rate and work resistance, Henry Ford decided to introduce the need to pay employees a higher wage for their services (i.e. â€Å"five dollar day†) (Vidal, 2011). Fordism also requires the need to separate business ownership with management control, decentralization, acknowledgement of lab our unions, collective bargaining, and the