Father

As the time past, and more women are educated, they started to think about the equal rights. Women’s status are always lower than men’s status. They did not want to be in this kind of situation any more. Therefore the feminist movement started in the 19th century. The movement began in Europe and America. This is a major turning point in women history, because at this time the idea of liberty and equality just germinated. At this time, women finally challenged the idea that they must always please men. And because of this idea, men always think they are better than women.

At the time, women even became the property of men. Men can even abuse women if they wanted to. Of course, it was impossible for women to have any rights. At that time, women always suffered from all those stresses. The situation do not only occurred in the family, but also in the entire society. For example if a woman has the same ability as a man, she would get less payment than a man and for no reason. Sometimes if a man and a woman goes to an interview at the same time, the employ will consider the man first. This is a kind of discrimination against women. That is unfair to the women.

In families women always give up their career for husbands and kids and they would take care of them. But men do not sacrifice anything. Without income, some women were looked down by their husbands. Without economic support, women are very frail. Therefore women need to be protected by men. However, men mostly control the society: therefore, it is unfavorable for women to compete with men in this kind of situation. Finally the succeed of the feminist movement established the bright further of women. As a mature and prosperous society women should have exactly same rights as men.! In the present society, citizens have many rights.

Such as the right to vote, suffrage right, property right, guardianship, citizenship and so on. These rights ensure our lives’ quality. As citizens own these rights they can have many benefits from those rights. They can be protected by the law and the country. But long time ago women did not have any right. Generally women are much weaker than men no matter from mental or physical. Under the men’s control if they did not get any protection they will be so vulnerable. They did not have any power to revolt. In old China women had no rights , and people believed men are better than women. Therefore they rather have boy than girl.

Sometimes if they had a girl they Just kill her or throw her away. At that time, they had to suffer from foot-binding in order to marry a good man. Old China allow one husband have more than one wife, and they treat their wives like slaves. Those things reflected the women’s situation at that time. They can not even chose what kind of life they were going to live. Because men chose them and those women’s future were in men’s hands. As females, we are so lucky that we are born in this time.! In the past women even did not have citizenship. They were belongings to their husbands Juts like items.

Some of the women were forced to stay at home for their whole life. They can not go outside. Husbands could asked their wives to do work, but instead husbands would get payment. Women were treated like animals without any humanity. Because they do not consider female as a person. That was so horrible. There is a doggerel in Chinese, the basic meaning is ” A husband’s wife is his donkey, you can beat her and ride on her. ” Not only husband can do this to his wife. If the fife give birth to a girl, the husband’s parents would not be happy and they can get rid of her if they want to.

Women do not have any status in ancient China at all. Of course they would not be considered as a citizen, even a part of the society. To be a citizen the most basic rights are the right to vote, the right to be elected and the right of personal liberty. But at that time they were Just like slaves. To have any rights was like a dream which would never come true for them. Especially for those vulnerable groups without security they Just like a clam without shell. That is why those women get so hard to gain their proper rights. They learn to become powerful, to become stronger, learn how to be independent. We must remember that men and women are spiritual equals” (Galatians 3: 26-29) “God is no respecter of persons. ” (Acts 10: 34-35) He does not play favorites. Faithful women mean Just as much to God as faithful men. (Women’s rights and responsibilities) Now, as the Feminist Movement succeed, more and more women get educated. This made the gap between men and women getting smaller. Now the equality between the sexes became a reality. ! ! Finally in 1918 women got one of the most important rights eight to vote. But it was limited only for women above 30. In 1928 it changed into women above 21 get the right to vote. A Brief History of Women’s Rights Movements) ” This was the very first time for women to vote. The event established the succeed of feminist movement in the history of women. In 1946 the United Nations established a Commission on the status of Women. ” (wisped) It covered gender equality and the empowerment of women. For such a long time women had been under controlled by men, but now they are free. They really became independent by themselves not only physically, but also mentally. Because they have their own rights now.! ! Later women became legal citizens. They owned citizenship and many other rights.

Also they could go outside and work. Two of the most important rights are property right and guardianship. Which means women can have their own property. Also when a couple divorce the woman can have the guardianship to the children as well. These rights make women became more strong, they can be independent without men and have a good life. It is very important for women to have a economy support. If they do not have money, they can not live by themselves. That is why men did not allow women go out to work. Because if they got money, men can not control women any more.

That is why it is so important for women to have her own Job. As citizens women can participate in this society and be considered as a part of the society. They are no longer an unimportant role. They became valuable, these made males know they need to treasure them. Otherwise women became powerful enough to protect themselves. Males no longer can hurt females. Also there are laws sets for females’ benefits. Now they can use them to protect themselves from men’s abuse, to like in the old times they have no choice but suffer the rest of her life or commit suicide.! As a citizen, when we own rights at the same time we also own responsibilities to this society. No matter the legal responsibilities or the responsibilities to our families. Those are the things we have to fulfill. Sometimes women have more things to worry about than men. Because men always busy on his work, only focus all his attention on how to make money. Men always think they are too busy to think about other things, therefore women have to take care of their home. However, women also need to work. Which means they have to work and take care of home at the same time.

They need to worry about those fussy housework, their children’s lives, their parents, cook meals and a lot of other things. But men also have responsibilities to the home, not only about the economic support but they also need to care about the home with love. A good example is children. Almost each family has at least one child. In China there is a investigation and statistics result about the time father spent with child and the time mother spent with child. Everyday a father spent less than an hour with children. More than 0% fathers says they are too busy with their work.

About 20% fathers do not realize the importance to spend time with their children. ( ) It is very important for a father to be a good example for a child, but they think their Jobs are more important than their children. Men give up their responsibilities for the family because their Jobs, and give it all to women. Therefore women have take all the responsibilities. But that is a little bit unfair for women because man and woman share a family. If there is any rights or responsibilities they should share instead of push all of them to one of the person.! There are some other responsibilities for women in other ways.

In the bible wives are required to respect husband, honor your father and your mother, bring up children. Women are responsible to a lot of things. Therefore they need to work much more harder. Because they love their children so much that they need to spend so much vigor on children, but men always careless and do not care much as women, they would have less things to care about than women. ! Sometimes husband has some trouble during work, as wife she has responsibility to share weal and woe with him. If the husband lose his Job or broke, he wife has to stand out and keep the family.

That makes women have to take those responsibilities men did not take but they should take. This is a little bit unfair but that is the reality. ! Women are also has responsibilities in God. In the church women were used as prophets. ” This was a public capacity which had been foretold ” (Acts 2:16-18). In 1 Corinthians 12:28, prophets were listed second among the gifts. According 1 Corinthians 11: 51 ” This was a very important position and women worked at it. ” Women are concerned by God more in the ancient time. Because nobody would listen to women’s witness.

But when Jesus die and came back to life again. Some women went to his grave to see him. God let those women to spread the message out. That was such an important message. God let the women to told others instead of men. This reflected that God considers men and women as the same. And women also used as teachers. Len John 4:28-29, 39, a women taught men who did not know about Jesus Christ. If they could do it then, they can do it now. Women have the right to learn (1 Timothy 2:11). John 4:9-15 shows us that the Samaritan woman was asking Jesus directly and not one of her five husbands.

In the community, women can work.. In Acts 9:36-39, Dorsa made them tunics and worked for the people around her. The picture of a worthy women in Proverbs 31 :12-20, 24 demonstrates that a woman can work! Women can work but they must choose the correct priorities. They will answer to God for what they have chosen Just like men will have to answer to God if they have chosen their careers over the well-being of their family (Proverbs 31:21-23, 28-29). ! ! Women also have the responsibility of loyalty to her husband. Men should not cheated on his wife, also women should not cheated on his husband also.

If they cited to live as a family, they have the responsibility to each other and their children. As a women it is not responsible and immorality if she decided to abortion. Because that is murdering. Every baby comes from God’s blessing, God does not give anybody any right to take other people’s life, even it is her own child’s life. Once a woman has physical relationship with a man, she and he both have the responsibility to the baby if they had one. ! In conclusion the personality, life. Status between men and women are equally, no matter men or women. We should not have a sense of discrimination that women re lower than men.

We should abandon the old idea about women, such as women belongs to men, women should not go outside to work, women should do all the housework at home and take care of the whole family, women were considered as slaves and so on. The As the time past, women’s status is rising. In a modern society, women are same as men in mentally. Everybody soul is equal in God’s eyes. Nobody is special. Therefore under this situation, men and women should have same rights and responsibilities to the country. Rights and responsibilities are coexisting. Everybody has to fulfill their own responsibilities.

They cannot only have rights but do not take the responsibilities. And responsibilities and obligation are respectively. Under these situation the whole society will be prosperous. People will have happy lives. The country will run normally. Everybody would welling to contribute to the society. The country would be prosperous. This is good for the country and good for the people. If women and men all have same status, these will not cause family conflicts. Children will have a healthy circumstance for them to grow up and they will have a correct value. All of these came from the equal rights.

There are so many advantages to have equal rights. Therefore no matter what rights men have, women should have as well. A mature society is a mixture. It can not only has men in it, or it can not only has women in it either. Men and women can not live without each other. Because God created us in this way, women is a part of men and men is a part of women. It is same for a couple. In a family, women and men are sharing the same family. Under this situation, they should communicate with each other rather than one control the other. Therefore we should have a sense of men and women are equal at all aspects.

I chose this area of study because I noticed that compared with personal knowledge, the New Right Ideology appears to exaggerate how fatherless upbringings affect children. Amongst my peers there are people raised in lone parent and nuclear families, and members of both groups experience similar amounts of problems and share similar social values, unlike Rebecca O’Neill’s conclusion that children from lone parent families are more likely to have underage sex due to a lack of parental control.

(100 words)

Contexts and Concepts

In 1993, Olson and Haynes conducted a study of American lone parent families. The results led to them identifying seven strengths of these families, six were relevant to my research. The first was that lone parents accepted the responsibilities of their roles and problems were always solved. The second was prioritisation of the parental role, meaning parents did not have to split attention. The third strength was discipline, proving children did not go without discipline and they knew how to behave in society.

The fourth was open communication, meaning children would feel able to talk to parents, preventing long term emotional problems. Parental self nurturance was the fifth strength. The final relevant strength was the rituals and traditions which meant the children’s lives had structure and they did not miss out on things that nuclear families are thought to have more of, such as family holidays.

Olson and Hayes proved the lone parent family to be beneficial to both parents and children, showing no deprivation of a second role model in the home to instil things such as social values and discipline. This is very relevant to what I aim to prove.

In September 2002, Rebecca O’Neill conducted the study, “Experiments in Living: The Fatherless Family”, concerning lone-mother parenting, as a result of birth outside marriage, divorce or changes in marriage or cohabitation. She researched the effects of a fatherless upbringing on the children of fatherless families and adults who had been raised in fatherless families. When studying the effects on children, O’Neill found they were likely to suffer emotional problems. She found that young teenagers were likely to take illegal substances, commit crimes and have sex before marriage, activities linked to socialisation and discipline in the home. O’Neill’s study of adults raised by lone mothers showed them to be less likely to gain qualifications and become employed, meaning they were more likely to be unemployed and depend on the state for benefits, therefore continuing the dependency culture and socialising children to think it is okay to depend on the state. O’Neill’s results also showed adults from lone-parent families were less likely to marry and more likely to commit crimes.

The conclusions of this study are very supportive of the New Right ideology, in that the best environment for a child to be raised in is the traditional nuclear family including mother and father, I seek to prove this wrong.

(400 words)

Main Research Method

My interviews will be unstructured, as it would be the most relevant way of gaining qualitative results, which are useful for finding out the opinions and emotions of interviewees, leading to a conclusion about personal social values. Using unstructured interviews would be significant because each person would have individual values, ones which they may not be able to fully express with structured interviews. Unstructured interviews would also mean the interviewees could talk about things that are relevant which I had not thought about prior to the interviews.

The interviews will still have slight structure, in that I will be taking an active approach in engaging the interviewees in conversation about points I would like to cover for my research. I feel that an active approach would be useful as an interviewee engaged in conversation would probably be more likely to talk about their opinions and create a sense of friendship and trust. These may be needed to allow the interviewee to feel comfortable about topics such as sex, intoxicant use and criminal activity, things which they may otherwise consider as taboo. These topics are relevant to the social values outlined by O’Neill, but if they are not probed about, they could easily go unmentioned. I will operationalise concepts by explaining their definitions, which will avoid responses being affected by lack of understanding.

My sample will be of 140 students at my school, 20 from each year group, half of whom will be from lone parent families and half of whom will be from nuclear families. Doing a split sample will allow me to show the similarities between the groups in terms of social values, emotional stability and educational attainment. The sample will be of pupils at my school, as finding interviewees will be easier and it would be cost efficient, with less travelling needed, also leading to a saving of time.

My sample will be voluntary, perhaps through advertisement. I would ask for voluntary interviewees who would openly talk about family matters. This sampling method would be suitable for my research because the interviews will be about some family matters, illegal activities and emotional subjects. These things can be hard for some people to talk about, so asking people to volunteer would be better than producing a random sample of which some people would feel uneasy talking about the covered issues.

(391 words)

Potential Problems

As with any study, potential problems can be found in using unstructured interviews. Ethical issues can cause problems such as privacy being invaded. Some interviewees may reveal information they did not intend to reveal at first, due to the informal nature of the interviews. Another problem is the moral dilemma I will be faced with if an interviewee reveals information that indicates they are at risk of harm or that they are committing serious crimes. Would it be right for me to breach confidentiality and get local authorities involved? I will also need to find ways of ensuring my interviewees come to no emotional harm as a result of the interviews.

Validity may be difficult to ensure. Due to my method’s informal nature, I may find myself making comments or asking questions that are biased, influencing interviewee responses. Also affecting validity is the interviewee. Some may have bad memories, and report things differently to what they are, others may conform to social desirability and make statements which are untrue, just to have themselves perceived in a certain way. This may also affect how reliable responses are when coming to a conclusion.

The research method will be free in terms of money, but not time. Realistically, for me to get the maximum information out of interviewees, I would need to spend at least an hour with each. But, that would take at least a month if all were to be done in school hours. Therefore, I will only probably get half an hour with each interviewee.

My method also has the disadvantage that general conversing in unstructured interviews could lead to the discussion of irrelevant topics. My sample could cause a problem of the small group I use not being representative of youths of other ages or social backgrounds.

Long years ago stress was never a part of anyone’s dictionary. However, today it is the most common word used by everyone ranging from a 13-year-old child to a 95 year old adult. What is the reason behind the frequent usage of this word in the modern times? Earlier, primitive man survived on bare essentials of life & yet he was stress free but today even though technology has gifted a luxurious life to man we are stressed. Earlier man had to roam from place to place in search of food & shelter.

Today the modern man can even work by sitting at home through technologies like laptops & cellular phones. Yet today man has been confronted by various diseases & has to tackle stress. Why is it that a primitive man working several times harder than the modern man had time for pleasure activities but a modern man has to make work his leisure and work to no end. Technology & modern equipments were to make man’s life stress free & relaxed but instead it had has adverse effects on man’s life.

A few centuries man had not even heard of fatal diseases like “ aids” however today every research & technology is being to find a treatment for this disease. Man has found medicines & treatments for the tiniest of the creatures on this earth but yet has failed to discover a cure, which would save the life of a fellow mate. Science and technology has made it possible to reach the moon but is it of any use because we don’t have time to go & even meet out old parents who have taught us what a moon is & how to reach there.

These facts make me think, “ Are we happier than our forefathers? ” in my opinion we are not as happy as they were. Our forefathers lived a stress-free, contented & happy life but today these words are only seen in the dictionary. If we desire to live like our forefathers then it could only be possible in the Himalayas because in this world we require money for minimal needs & necessities & to earn that also we have to work very hard. Working hard would mean work during the day accompanied by work through the night. Is this called being happy?

My father birthday It’s my habit to revise my homework every morning. This was became my grandmother used to wake me up since I was in primary school. This had helped me a lot in improving my school result and I wanted to keep it up and score good result in my spm Yesterday I also woke up early but not to revise my homework because the day was my father birthday. We all son decided to open a party for my father, but we did not know how to prepare a surprise party as I had no experience in buying things in market and cook my father favourite food.

So we decided to ask my neighbour Jun Hen brother for helping. He is a kind heart person as he always help me when I need his for helping. When he knew I needed his helped to prepare party, he didn’t refuse and agree to help immediately. I was very happy because he also helped me to cook the dishes. We didn’t spend much time in the market because we needed a lot of time to prepare after my father came back from work. We cooked a lot of dishes such as sweet sour fish, fried chicken, curry, dessert and of cause a delicious cake.

After cooking we also decorated my home, my whole family members helped me to hang balloons and ribbons Approximately 5pm we finish preparing and waiting my father back home.. My father would reach home at 6 pm sharp. before 6 pm we all hid behind the door to give him a big surprise as he didn’t know we were celebrating for his this special day. He was terrified when he entered the house, he could not believe that we still remembered his birthday and what he liked to eat. After enjoying the meal we had a karaoke session.

We sang a lot of English song and my sister took a lot of photographs with my father. After that we played some games, my parents also joined in. I felt happy as I had never seen this such a long time. We whole family members also sang the birthday song for my father and gave him a big present that was a “kiss”, my father was touched then he cried. He felt happy. This was lovely day, my father was very happy as he didn’t expect this would happen, he felt that we have grown up and hopelly we can always celebrate this kind of occasions

In 1993, Anand Rathi got the membership of Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE), when it was looking for professionals to become members. Prior to that, Rathi was leading the Aditya Birla Group, as the President of Indian Rayon, which is now Aditya Birla Nuvo. After completing a great success cycle in his career, Rathi was keen to venture into entrepreneurship.

Talking about starting business at a later stage, he says, “At Aditya Birla, besides textiles, I set up the cement business too. I was very enterprising and decided to start on my own. The opportunity came when I became a member of BSE.”

The BSE membership gave Rathi the opportunity to set up his own venture in 1994. He started an equity broking firm expanding into merchant banking, wealth management, commodity management, and insurance. From 1994-2003, the company expanded into various other divisions.

Around the same time, Rathi’s son-in- law, Pradeep Gupta, also became a member of National Stock Exchange (NSE). He too started a broking firm. Soon, they came together to bring it all under one umbrella of Anand Rathi Group.

In 2004, Gupta’s wife and Rathi’s daughter, Priti, also became a part of the company. She was instrumental in setting up the commodity business from scratch. And later, she went on to launch the currency business. Talking about her effort, Priti says, “When we saw the opportunity, we came together to set up the business.”

She further says, “My uncle, my father’s younger brother, was in Bombay. During college, I worked as a trainee at his organisation. This was my first experience in stock broking. But things became a little slow after I got married. At that time, my husband was into textiles. So there was not much where I could add value.”

On the culture shared in a family-run business by her father, Priti says, “We work in an extremely entrepreneurial environment. That’s the culture he has set. As a family, we have different ways of functioning. There are management practices which he has set up. There has been constant learning from his side. All of us have different management style.”

Her father lays emphasis on constant learning “Currently I am studying at Harvard,” informs Priti. Rathi has quite an open culture for everyone. “I am a huge fan of his management style. He indulges in constant learning. Being open to change, he constantly pushes us to learn whatever is new. It helps us to evolve constantly. We are very agile across the board. We also mentor women entrepreneurs through the organisation,” shares Priti.

Besides Pradeep and Priti, Rathi’s son and daughter-in-law are also heading different verticals of the company. “There are professional CEOs to head different branches, each branch is led by a family member,” informs Rathi. The family decides senior level recruitment, supporting CEOs in their regular working and helping make crucial decisions on marketing and clients.

With close to 2,500 people under its arm, the group now counts amongst the top financial services companies in India. In last two decades, it has grabbed half a million customers.

Year 2007, also saw Citi Ventures investing in the group. However, it was later bought back by the company. Currently, the business is completely owned, controlled and funded by the family members. On plans to take the company public, Rathi says, “We might look at taking the company public in coming days, but it depends on market conditions.” On how clashes are handled in a family-run enterprise, he says, “We work entrepreneurially. There is autonomy given to everyone. That’s the only way to grow.”

Open to opportunities

Talking about any future opportunities it might be looking at, he adds, “In house, we are working on certain areas of fintech, if there are opportunities available we might look at it in some point of time.” Rathi has gone on to support two-three start-ups and has been involved with them personally.

Sharing his role as an angel, he says, “These were people with some good professional background, and they wanted to start something. One was into steel engineering and another in HR.” Though Rathi supported them but there was no structure to it. “I liked what they were doing. It was not a regular thing,” he states. Private banking of wealth management is something Rathi is betting big on. His aim is to be among the top five in whatever the group does.

(This article first appeared in the Indian edition of Entrepreneur magazine (October 2016 Issue).

Why did the founding fathers create a constitution based on the ideas of separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism and the bill of rights? The founding fathers wanted to create a constitution because many believed that the national government had to be stronger than what it had been with the use of the Articles of Confederation. But at the same time they were fearful of human nature and how often it could be seen in the history of other countries such as Britain, for people in the position of power to infringe on the rights of others, by becoming hungry with power.

Taking this into account, they wanted to create a government with another power to keep order and to govern. But also make sure there were sufficient checks put in place so that the government could never exercise power that threatens individual liberties. The constitution created a government with a written set of rules to follow which it could not infringe upon. This in itself was one way to create a limited government, which is a main factor in why the founding fathers created a constitution.

The Founding fathers also wanted to divide power in different ways, in another attempt to prevent its future abuse. The three main concepts within the constitution are separation of powers, cheques and balances, and federalism. The founding fathers originally debated where power should ultimately lie; Alexander Hamilton suggested that a unitary system would be the best. This is where the power lies with the central authority; many knew that this would never work, as the country is far too big and diverse. There were even hints at a monarchy but George Washington quickly made his feelings on the idea open. It is an idea I must view with adherence and reprimand with severity’ George mason on the other hand was in support of a confederate system, this is where the states would be split up , and then all have to agree on individual issues. There are very few examples of a confederate system working, and it is clear to see why it would not work in in America, as it would be very difficult to get all the states to agree on individual issues, due to the diversity of the country.

The solution to this problem was suggested by James Madison, which was quite simply a mixture of the two systems unitary and confederate. This is where power is divided between central and state government. National or delegated powers are powers only exercised by the national government, examples of this today would be the right to print money, and the right to declare war. Some examples of concurrent or shared powers are the right to borrow money, and make and enforce law. An example of a state or reserved power is the right to regulate intrastate commerce or create corporation laws.

This was done for two main reasons, the first being to limit centralised power, and presidential power, and secondly so that states would agree to the constitution. The states also agreed for two other reasons , one being the Connecticut compromise, and the other being the Bill of rights , which most American historians just count as part of the original constitution, but it wasn’t actually added till 4 years later, Madison claimed it was important as ‘You must specify your liberties’. The Connecticut compromise was created to keep the small states happy, so that they would agree to the constitution.

The geographically small states wanted representation based on population, not on size of state, when the biggest states with the smallest population wanted it to be based on the flat rate. So the political compromise was that in the House of Representatives, representation was based on population, and in the senate it was based on the geographical size of a state. The bill of rights is a document that American historians claim is part of the original constitution, although it was sent off to the individual states 4 years later.

It was there to clearly show the rights of the people, so that they could never be taken away. The 1st amendment included freedoms such as freedom of assembly and free speech or the 2nd amendment which is the right for everyone to bear arms. It is often shouted out by gun associations when the government tries to put restrictions on the ownership of guns. The founding fathers put this in place so that it would outline in more the detail the precise freedoms of the people, which also helped to convince the smaller states.

The constitution splits the power given to national government into three branches, which are separate from each other: the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. The separation of powers was based on the ideas of Montesquieu, with him ‘L’esprit de lois’ which means the spirit of the law. The executive plays the role of administrating law. The president does this in many ways , for example he; executes federal laws and programs, conducts foreign policy , commands the armed forces, negotiates treaties and other such roles.

Checks and balances another main factor of the constitution comes in here, as the people get to keep a check on the president every 4 years with the presidential election, which stops any tyranny of powers. This can also be seen in another branch of government. The legislature passes law, this is done through congress. Congress is made up of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Its roles include; regulating interstate and foreign commerce , creating and maintaining the armed forces , printing money, declaring war , and other such roles.

The power here is limited in two ways, which is exactly what the founding fathers wanted; it’s done through a 6 year change of the senate, which rotates 1/3 of its members for election every 2 years. This is also done in the House of Representatives, as they have to run for re-election every 2 years, this means that representatives have to get things the public want done, or they can just be kicked out. This keeps power in the hands of the many, which is also how they wanted to constitution to work. The last branch is the Judiciary, its role is to interpret and enforce the law.

It is able to stay separate from the other branches, as it operates heavily outside the government, but also because ‘nothing maintains the independence of the judiciary more than its permanency in office’. It is also tied to the other two branches, as if the president wants to pass a law, it must get through congress and through the Supreme Court, as they can rule it unconstitutional, so the founding fathers created a system so that every branch was a check on each other, this also creates a system, where politics becomes the art of compromise.

This system of checks and balances means that all the branches have to work together, and have to compromise. Congress holds its check on the president in different ways, such as; Congress is able to impeach and remove a president, although impeachment does require a 2/3 majority of house, and removal 2/3 of the senate. Congress can also override a presidential veto, this also requires a 2/3 majority in both houses, but this system means that no one branch can hold far more power than another which is another example of why the founding fathers chose such a system.

It also holds other powers such as rejecting treaties which limits presidential foreign policy. Congress also holds checks over the judiciary. It can do this by proposing constitutional amendments, and impeaching and removing judges with the 2/3 majority in the senate. This also shows us that the judiciary can never hold too much power over the president or congress, which is another example of how the founding fathers wanted the constitution to work. There are also powers given to the other two branches of government, which help to keeps checks, so that they can all counter each other with enough majority.

But a problem with this is that it can lead to political gridlock, and this means very little can get done, which is not what the founding fathers intended. To conclude, the founding fathers created a constitution that meant that power could never be held within the hands of the few, but with the many. It also created checks on power in every branch of government, not just from the people, but from the branches themselves acting as checks against each other.

They had wanted to create a system that worked this way, because of the tyranny that could be seen in other countries. This is why George Washington destroyed any idea of a monarchy, he wanted the United States of America to be founded on principles the promoted compromise, and freedom, and equality. It was also meant to act as a block on any future tyranny, or corruption of power, but it also creates problems in itself, as it can lead to political gridlock, but no political system is perfect.

One theme in The Road is paternal love; this is the relationship between the father and his son. Their bond plays a powerful part in the novel and impacts the decisions made during their journey. The two protagonists remain unnamed in the book, giving their familial relationship their full identity. This makes their relationship relatable to any parent and child bond outside of the novel. It is clear that they only have each other’s company and that the father feels that his only job is to protect his son from any danger.

However, the son’s purpose is to “carry the fire”, a metaphor that keeps readers guessing about what the fire reflects. It could be that the father and son both carry their morals; they do not steal from the living, kill or eat others. Alternatively, it could be seen that the boy is carrying the fire to lead humanity forward, towards a better future. Their relationship doesn’t change dramatically in the novel. However despite their beliefs, the father begins to go against them. He steals from the living and kills two people.

Although these were done in order to protect his son, the boy became upset with his father when he took back their belongings from a man who stole from them, leaving him with nothing. This portrays the child’s caring personality. He is very different from his father; he trusts others and wants to help them. Mccarthy does not state the names of these characters, but readers know that they are father and son. We know this as the child consistently calls him “papa”. The reason for this is that it makes it universal, allowing any reader to relate with the characters, particularly a father.

Also, it is significant as it contributes to the idea of the unknown. The cause of the apocalypse remains ambiguous to readers and the lack of names reflects the vagueness of the novel. I believe it makes their relationship appear a lot stronger as it gives a sense of solitude between them. The father and son have very different personalities. The father is deeply suspicious about other travellers and their intentions. This is understandable as we come across the bad guys in the novel who intend on impregnating women and then eating their children as well as other travellers.

He feels that it his duty by God to protect his son. Therefore this represents why he is so untrusting of others. On the other hand, the son is quite the opposite. He continually shows that he wants to help those in need and has faith in humanity. For instance when they find the man who stole their belongings, the father has no qualms about taking their things back and leaving him naked in the road. “He was just hungry papa, he’s going to die” – although the boy knows that the man stole from them he still wants to help him. The child is very caring and concerned towards others.

This may be because he has little knowledge about the dangers that could happen and maybe does not believe that there are many bad guys. Alternatively, it could be seen that he has faith about what may happen in the future and so is willing to give food to strangers. Another example is when they find a pile of food hidden in an underground bunker. The boy didn’t want to take it until they made sure that no one was alive there to have it. He then thanks the people for leaving the food – “we know that you saved it for yourself and if you were here we wouldn’t eat it no matter how hungry we were”.

The boy is very warm-hearted and the prayer demonstrates that he has faith in God. He is also respecting his morals in from the living. In contrast to his son, the father has lost his faith in God and curses him frequently in the novel. “Damn you eternally have you a soul? ” – although it appears he believes in God, he blames him for the life himself and his son both have. Their contrasting personalities have an effect on their relationship. It is not clear at the beginning but towards the end it becomes apparent of what each of their purpose is.

The father’s sole purpose is to guide his son to the coast and teach him how to survive along the way. The son however is the ‘faith’ within the story. He is the hope for a better future. The son is more trusting towards others and therefore becomes upset and quiet when his father doesn’t agree with him. “I’m afraid for that little boy” – The son has never seen another young boy and is frightened for him but his father shrugs off his pleas to help him and says “I know but he’ll be alright”.

Towards the end of the book it appears that the father and his son become distant to each other due to their diverse personalities. It could however be seen that the son is a lot more knowledgeable about dangers and therefore does not need his father as much. The boy is very warm-hearted and appears to struggle to understand that danger could occur at any moment, whilst his father knows a lot more about what some people, “the bad guys”, do in order to survive. It could be seen that the child is very naive and therefore trusts others more than his father.

However his trust in others teaches his father a valuable lesson; that not everyone is a “bad guy”. For instance when the pair come across Ely, the father is wary about him but his son is adamant that they give him a tin of food. This shows to readers that the boy has faith unlike his father. Another example is when the son sees the little boy; he begs his father to go back and help him and asks if he can go with them. I believe that he wants to help others as for he would want someone to help him if he were alone and in their position.

This could be seen as foreshadowing the upcoming event of his father dying and the son being found and taken care of by strangers. The boy is always apprehensive when his father leaves him to search through a house. However this could be seen that he does not like being alone and could be a hint of his father’s fate. The boy is taught how to survive throughout their journey and is told that he must shoot himself in the mouth if anyone tries to harm them. I feel that the father believes that he owes it to his son to have a pain-free life.

After all he made the decision to continue surviving with his son. This makes their relationship very unique, as the father clearly believed there was a chance in humanity at the start but slowly begins to lose his faith, whereas his son has strong beliefs about the future. This could show that the father’s faith has been passed on to his son. This relates to how they are “carrying the fire”, symbolising that they are carrying faith. Their relationship only subtly changes in the novel. It is very strong throughout despite their very different personas. I feel that the father is olely trying to protect his son, who of which is the only reason his father is still fighting. They each have different purposes and the sons is to “carry the fire”, symbolic of his faith.

The change in their relationship is that the son becomes more aware about dangers and learns how to survive on his own, not needing his father as much as he did at the start of the novel. Another change may be that they become distant due to their trust or lack of it in others. The father trusts no one but his own son, whilst the boy wishes to help people who he believes are good.

This causes the son to become upset with his father when he doesn’t let his son help others. Readers may feel that the father is doing the right thing by not helping others as they will both lose food and time. Alternatively, readers could side the boy and deem the father as selfish. They may believe that the boy is sticking by his morals of helping those in need. In conclusion their relationship, I believe, does not change dramatically but however their differences collide when the boy shows to his father that not everybody is a “bad guy”.