Gender

What is the point, Jo, my darling Jo, has just blatantly displayed that she does not, nor does she wish to, love me. She says that she loves me dearly as a friend but how can that be true if she could refuse me in the way that she did. How could she refuse me… me of all people? We have been the best of friends for such a long time. She mustn’t be as smart as I once thought. She speaks of how wonderful life would be if she had some money and I am offering that to her, but she has refused.

Maybe I was wrong to love her. How could I have fallen in love with a girl who is so incredibly masculine and different? But I have and just knowing that she does not love me back, I know she would if she would just try. There isn’t much I can do about it now though, she has made up her mind and if I know Jo as I know I do, once her mind is made up, not even she can change it.

Maybe grandfather is right, maybe it is best for me to go away. I do not wish to waste my life here in this room, staring out this window watching the girls all day every day. But I do not wish to leave my Jo behind. She is the reason that I went to college. I graduated with honours for goodness sake, and all for nothing. I suppose I could go and join the family business but I would really rather focus on my music.

I don’t understand. Last night she seemed so happy to see me – I was sure she would accept me – she called me a hero. What girl in her right mind would not want a hero? But Jo is not a normal girl, she is … well different and that made me love her all the more.

She and her sisters are so incredibly wonderful and their mother reminds me of my own. I have always wanted my mother back and Marmee is so much like her it almost pains me to hear her speak. The way that she looks at the girls, the same way my mother used to look at me and Mr March is like Father. Father went away to war and a couple of weeks later we received news that he died in battle. Mr March, although is not like him, reminds me of him.

I guess partly it could have been the thought of having a mother and a father again that I really fell in love with. Maybe Jo, my beautiful Jo, was just a way of getting that again.

Good morning/ afternoon Dr Mayne and fellow students. The recount that I have just presented was told from Laurie’s perspective and takes place after Chapter 35, Heartache. This chapter is the scene when Laurie asks Jo to marry him and she refuses. In this recount, Laurie is sitting at his window looking out at the March’s house and contemplating why he asked Jo to marry him and his upcoming trip abroad.

Theodore Laurence, or Laurie as he is known, plays a very important role in the book Little Women. He is a member of the wealthy Laurence family and is the heir to the Laurence business. He is a member of the middle-upper class of society. Laurie demonstrates a very different point of view from other men of the time.

Being of this class, and asking Jo, a girl who is very much beneath him, to marry him, he challenges the discourse of class very strongly. In the time of the 1860s, it was very much frowned upon to marry beneath you. However, Laurie does not believe that class matters when he asks Jo to marry him. Also he challenges this discourse in that he has always associated with the March family.

Laurie challenges both this discourse and the discourse of gender by not wanting to join the family business, as was the custom of the time for men, instead wanting to focus on his music. In addition, he challenges the gender discourse as the males of this time were supposed to be the “dominant” person in the marriage; however it is clear that he would allow Jo to be dominant. He also challenges this discourse simply by asking Jo to marry him as she is perceived to be very masculine and does not act as a young lady of that era was expected to act. In saying this, however, he also endorses this discourse. As he is wealthier than Jo, Laurie would be the “breadwinner” for the family, a role traditionally accepted by men at the time.

Laurie not only supports Jo and her “masculine” ways but he often says that the girls are lucky. He does not like the fact that he has to study and he often wishes that he could be like the March girls and not have to study. He also falls in love with Jo even though she does not conform to the ways of the 19th century. In fact, that makes him like her more.

Laurie is very kind and respectful towards women, unlike other men of his time, and has a very positive attitude towards them. Although he is expected to, he does not wish to join the family business, however in this recount, he begins to change his mind and feels that the business would actually be good for him. Up until he asks Jo to marry him, Laurie is quite careful with his money. After Jo refuses him though, he begins to spend it all. He wishes he could be freer and be able to do what he likes, like the March girls. This again, challenges the discourse of gender in a way, as he does not wish to act like a male is supposed to act.

Laurie is very strong in his belief that women are equal. To coincide with this, he also believes in the equality of class. This is evident throughout the book and most obviously in his interaction with the Marches as a poorer family. A stereotypical male and upper class man of the time would not have associated with a family such as this especially because they are women of a lower class. It is very clear that Laurie is not like these men especially when he asks Jo to marry him.

There are many gaps and silences that surround Laurie in this book. One gap that was addressed in the recount was the issue of Laurie’s mother and father. It seems that Laurie’s mother was a lot like Marmee and his father went to war like Mr March. It could be said that this is the real reason that Laurie wants to marry Jo and be a part of the March family. As he says in the recount, “he has always wanted his mother back” and being a part of the March family may fulfil that desire.

While it is very clear in the recount that Laurie is not the typical male – he does not want to study or work in the business and seems to have a more feminine mind – other traits are only hinted at throughout the book. He could have a bit of a temper which is shown in the recount. It could also be said that he is quite selfish as he could just want to marry Jo to be a part of the March family and “have” a mother and father again. He also spends a lot of the family’s money to make himself feel better after Jo refuses him.

The audience is positioned to respond to Laurie in a mixed way. In some cases, the audience is positioned to like Laurie as he does not conform to the “rules” of the 19th century. He treats women equally and, although they are considered beneath him, treats the Marches as friends. The audience could also sympathise with him when Jo turns him down as he becomes very quiet and is genuinely upset.

Theodore Laurence is a very submissive character in the book Little Women. He is very respectful towards women. He is not the stereotypical male due to his belief in the equality of gender and class. Throughout the book he develops a very strong love for Jo March, however, when he asks her to marry him, she refuses.

Yes grandfather I will prepare for our trip.

I know it will be good for me to travel abroad – I just wish that I wasn’t going alone. I wish with all of my heart that Jo would come with me.

I am going to die.

Going to die I am.

I am to die going.

Five flittering little words, whirling round and round my head. Death. The Grim Reaper, Lucifer, the Great Crow, the Black Cat, Anubis, the Pale Horseman. Humanity’s greatest mystery, oldest fear, the Hourglass we all try to run away from, finally to be unmasked; I am no longer afraid. Suddenly, there is so much I want to say, so much I want to do, but in my sudden rush of adrenaline, I am confined to these four walls, this hard, rough mattress, eyes fixed on the blank, white ceiling. I want to move, say something, let the world know that this is it, I’m through, I’m done…but then again, who will care?

It hits me; what are we, foolish human beasts? Did we really think we could cut the marionette strings that link us to Time’s fiddling hands? Is it possible, that we once believed we were safe from the sharp edges of the Fates’ scissors? Surely we didn’t, couldn’t, once imagine that we would be prepared to die, that we would know when our ferry through Acheron would embark. No, surely not; before you know it, the obolus is stuffed down your throat and Charon’s dark paddle begins to glide through the gloomy waters of the underworld. I repeat I am not afraid, just mystified by the mists of the Unknown that follow behind the curtain. I can see it, flimsy little thing; a roughly cut, black silk sheet, full of whispers and buzzing voices. Who’s there? Can I touch it? I’m going insane. No Magwitch, there is no curtain, there’s just the blank white ceiling, get some sleep.

I don’t want to sleep! I want to go! I want to touch the curtain! What does it feel like? It looks so soft… too soft.

Something isn’t right. It’s not beautiful anymore, in fact, as you get closer to it, you can see it really isn’t silk, they’re dirty rags, intertwined in each other’s filth…I don’t want to pull this curtain anymore, I don’t like it. Pip! Come back! Come back and tell me about my daughter! May I know more of her before I die that the mere fact that she is alive and the woman of your dreams! Please…the Lord won’t be merciful to me! Please…don’t leave me…

I am not ready for this, but I let it happen anyways; with one last sweeping action, the curtain engulfs me in its sea of black.

I am going to die.

I am dead.

Phoenix Material Issue Analysis After reading the selected critical issue, use the following questions to analyze the issue. The word count for individual questions may vary but your responses should total 1,200- to 1,400-words for the entire worksheet. .1 What are some of the strengths associated with the Pro side of the Issue? What are some of the weaknesses? During the Pro side of the issue of women opting out, one of the strong points of the argument was that women were choosing to opt out of working once hey began having families.

Although we live in a time where men and women both are the bread winners on the homes, the women are still the ones who feel as If they have to stop working and stay at home all of the time to take care of the children. If the husband is the one making all the money for the household, the wife will decide to “choose” to quit their jobs because they feel as if thing are being taken care of on the financial front and they are needed at home to take care of the children. A weak point Is that If a woman wants to make the choice to continue working, they should array a man who is considerably younger or considerably older than they are.

An older man is said to have been working longer and will have the financial means necessary to keep up with a household. Women who do have kids will be able to choose to quit their Job because there is no need for extra wages to be coming In. If they decide to keep working they can then choose a part time job where they can be at home with the kids during the day while the father is at work, and work during the night while the kids are at home sleeping and under the care of the father.

What are some of the strengths associated with the Con side of the issue? What are some of the weaknesses? In the debate on the Con side, a strength of the argument made Is that women are not opting out, they do not have choices or options. They are torn between being a nurturing mother, or having a strong career. In a lot of these career paths, the debate is to whether or not they are family friendly, or very flexible. The women feel the need to be at home taking care of the child and making money to support the family.

One of the weak points to this side of the argument Is that a woman may not have the desire to be with the child at the earlier stages of the child’s life. For some women, that desire or the nature to be with the child comes at a later time, when they feel the child is beginning to really develop. Also, a point was made that there is a case of absent husbands, which Just means that the woman who shares the Job burden with the husband never gets to spend quality time with him.

Whenever she is home with the child, he is at work and when she is going to work, then he is Just coming in from his Job. The only solution that loud possibly be made in order to spend time together is to get a schedule where the parents are both working at the same times and maybe hire a babysitter or a nanny to lad In caring for the child while the parents are away at work. This way, both of the parents are free to work and will still have time when they come home to wind 1 OFF . 3 Based on the statements presented in this critical issue, which author do you agree with?

Provide supporting evidence. I am a little on the fence as to which side to agree with because while I feel that women do choose to stop working or angered to part time working when their children are born, I still think that it is possible that a lot of women do not get to work in a career where they can have both a family and a good strong career. In a lot of today’s careers, a person needs to be flexible and needs to be able to give their Job 100 percent which Just cannot be done if there is a family that needs a parent.

In some situations, a man will stay home while the woman goes to work, and there is gender equality, but a lot of the time this is not to be the case. Although women had to fight to have the choice to work, there re a lot of men who still think the woman’s “place” is at home taking care of the kids and doing the housework. Some men may tell the women that it is their choice to work, but it really is not much of a choice when there are no other options as far as taking care of the children.

I agree that not a lot of Jobs offer flexible schedules for those who have families, and when a person has to adjust their schedules frequently, people may see it as giving them favors. The first argument stated that we are going back in time instead of progressing, which I do not really agree with, so I agree more tit the second statement that was presented. Today is no longer Just a “man’s world”, and women are wanting to be standing as equal. .4 Explore two other roles that can be acquired during early and middle adulthood, such as through parenthood, romantic relationships, and career.

How have these roles changed through the past generations? One of the roles that has changed in the past generations is the one of being a caregiver. Seeing how more women are making it in the career fields, there are some men out there who are taking care of the home while the woman goes off to work and takes care of finances. It was said to be the woman’s role to stay home and take care of the home as well as the children, but times have certainly changed. In some cases, both parents are working while the children either have babysitters, or they go into a day care facility.

Getting and staying married is another role that has changed through the years. In the past, even though the couple are no longer happy, they would stay married. In this case, it is no longer the same once the couple are not hashing out their differences. They are quick to leave once there is no more emotion left to try to patch things up in the relationship. 5 What psychological adjustments are made during early and middle adulthood to adapt to aging and changes in life style? How does this affect development?

For a woman, there are different psychological adjustments when it comes to adapting to age and changes in one person’s lifestyle. A woman will have to go through many bodily changes that they may not be ready for, especially if someone has not explained to them what to expect and what is going to happen. Men go through their own bodily changes, but the psychology of it all for boys and girls are different. As need to do something “meaningful” or even sometimes a bit reckless. Not all people go through the same stages, and sometimes people will go through these stages at different times in their lives.

When people are growing up, they have to mentally prepare themselves for what they will be going through. Instead of being afraid and running away from the change, a person needs to prepare and welcome the change because it will be the beginning of a new period in their lives as they continue to grow and develop. While there are some things that a person will go through as they are developing, there will be things that a person goes through that can occur at any period of time.

Major Essay Women across the world face challenges and experiences such as gender class inequality, oppression, struggle with identity, sexual awakening, women’s objectification, personal resistance, reliving women’s history, female empowerment and etc. These are some of the themes that will be addressed In this essay. These themes will be supported by feminist short stories from books such as “The Yellow Wallpaper and other stories” by Charlotte Perkins Gillian and “The Bloody Chamber and other stories” by Angela Carter.

Through the use of aesthetic texts, women’s challenges and experiences will be interpreted using the themes in these stories. In the story “The Yellow Wallpaper” by Charlotte Perkins Gillian, focuses on women living In the 19th century where men have a high standing In the social hierarchy that oppressed women, Gender plays a big role In social hierarchy. Even a rich woman cannot exercise the same rights and privileges as men would. Women were not given the same equality as men. Gillian focuses on the themes such as personal resistance and women’s history.

As the narrator in this story battles with err own psychological mind and the outside world, she slowly falls into deep madness as her obsession grows with the yellow wallpaper. To relief herself from going Insane, she keeps a Journal that exercises her creative mind as her husband prohibits It. This act of writing In her Journal Is also similar to the movie, The Hours where the character Virginia Wolf wrote everyday to keep herself sane in her confinement. The wallpaper represented her sanity and freedom.

As a show of resistance from her husband she tore the wallpaper, which made her feel free and powerful. “l wonder if they all come out of that wallpaper as I did? (Gillian 34) shows her longing of freedom and resistance. Women during this time period did not have much value as they were expected to be only wives and mothers and cannot carry on other responsibilities. “It Is so discouraging not to have any advice and companionship about my work” (Gillian 24) as her husband instructed her to stay in confinement and away from writing.

She has spent her days confined in a room where there is only a window to look at which eventually made her insane. As a woman living In the 19th century, the narrator had no control over her own life and had let her husband dominate her. Women did not have the same opportunities as men did. The author’s use of these themes gave the story a powerful message of women longing for freedom and equality in their society. In the story, “If I Were A Man” by Charlotte Perkins Gillian, focuses on a woman who fought social boundaries and “take risk to improve themselves and their material condition” (Hoofers 36).

As in this story, women were not ready for business but Gillian challenged that. Gillian focuses on the themes such as gender Identity and empowerment, During this time period, women’s roles were to stay confined In their preference in gender role was examined in this story, “Gerald had already about that bill, over which she- as Mollie- was still crying at home” (Gillian 39) shows how different the roles of men and women were. Women were the only subdue to be emotional who stayed at home while the men were the ones who held themselves together with pride and dignity.

Mollie Matheson finds herself to be happy when she becomes her husband Gerald “walking down the path so erect and square- shouldered” (Gillian 35) as manly as she can ever be. The thought of being a man gave Mollie a sense of pride and dignity compared to when she was a woman. In Mollies sense to have equality amongst men, she “felt such freedom and comfort” (Gillian 36) in becoming Gerald as she has all these privileges a woman would not have. Empowerment became a big symbol once Mollie started to earn money and privileges only men would have had. She never had dreamed of how it felt to have pockets” (Perkins 36) shows how she realizes that she is powerful having money and being able to support herself without the need of having a man to rely on. The themes used in this story became an awakening for women to reach higher and climb the social hierarchy to have equal opportunities as men do. In the story, “The Cottage” by Charlotte Perkins Gillian, focuses closely on how traditional male and female roles are slowly evolving. In this story, despite of the old believe in women serving as wives and housekeepers was challenged.

Gillian focuses on themes such as gender identity and status. Malta is expected to be nothing but a wife and housekeeper as “what they care for most, after all, is domesticity… What they want to marry is a homemaker” (Gillian 55) according to her friend. This shows how inequality and lack of freedom plays along in traditional roles f women. Also, Mammal’s lack of independence and longing for Ford’s approval shows how she follows the traditional role of a woman. “l could cook. I could cook excellently… But if it was a question of pleasing Ford Mathews- ” (Gillian 56) as her goal was to please Ford and nothing but Ford.

Women were expected to act polite and demure, as they do not want their status to be devalued. “… She thought it would look better if we had an older person with us… ” (Gillian 57) shows how women are confined to act a certain way and are not able to show who they truly are. Women are also seen as trophies or objects a man can have whenever he wishes, “And woman? He will hold her, he will have her when he pleases” (Gillian 100). Women were treated nothing equally as men but in this story, this concept was challenged.

The themes in this story reminds us that women do have traditional roles but can always do something more than being a wife or housekeeper. In the story, “The Bloody Chambers” by Angela Carter focuses on sexual awakening and women’s objectification through fairytale storytelling. This challenges the typical fairytale story in which is structured as pleasant and happy into gory and violent. The heroine was blossoming into adulthood as she experiences her sexual awakening upon to losing her virginity. “… Away from Paris, away from girlhood, away from the white, enclosed quietude of my mother’s apartment… (Carter 7) shows her freedom from childhood and practice her sexual curiosity. She also compares the act of “… A tender, delicious ecstasy of excitement… ” (Carter 7) leading up to intercourse as meet her husband. She longs and waits the moment when her husband deflowers women “have been major targets of sexual stereotypical and detrimental orphaned” (Adams and Fuller 7) and seen as sexual objects. Marquis viewed the heroine as a sexual object that he can torture and violate. The heroine felt violated as Marquis in a way forced her to undress and deflower her like “disrobing of the bride, a ritual from the brothel” (Carter 15).

The heroine is comparing the lost of her virginity as a ritual from a brothel depicts how disrespected and disgusted she felt while doing this act. Marquis was a power hungry who showed no respect to her brides. The heroine did not feel that losing her virginity was a special act but rather a aromatizing experiences as “watched a dozen husbands approach me in a dozen mirrors… “(Carter 15). Although the story ended with a happy tone, the story still degrades women as the heroin was relieved that she was able to cover her red mark as the blind piano tuner “cannot see it… T spares me shame” (Carter 41). The themes portrayed in this story shows that fairytale stories objectify women and given women a lesser value then they should have. In the story, “Puss in Boots” by Angela Carter examines the role of violence in sex and woman’ objectification. The young woman was predicted as a poor girl who was arced to marry a rich man. In this case, gender and class play a role in social status in this story. As Signor Pantone symbolizes violence and sex for the young woman, as she wishes for sexual gratification she must submit to violence. L gave her the customary tribute of a few firms thrusts of my striped loins” (Carter 70). As Signor Pantone was murdered and passed away, the young woman and Puss’ master proceeded with the act of intercourse despite having a dead corpse next to them. “. They’re at it, hammer and tongs, down on the carpet since the bed is occupy” (Carter 04) shows the young woman’s absurd attraction of violence towards sex. It seems like the young woman is aroused by the acts of violence around her. Women were called unpleasant names and were treated as property by their masters or husbands.

One of Signor Pantheon’s servants was being called a “hag” and described as someone who is very ugly and useless. Also, Signor Pantaloon sees the young woman as property and a sense of please giver. She is also a prisoner of her own where she can only “sit in a window for one hour and one hour only’ (Carter 101) shows how she doesn’t have freedom and is being held captive by her own husband. The themes of violence in sex and women’s objectification helped shaped the story poor outlook on women’s value. In the story, “The Tiger’s Bride” by Angela Carter focuses on women’s objectification and sexual awakening.

The heroine is a beauty whose father had a gambling addiction in which he had lost to the Beast. The heroine then was used as a wager for her father’ gambling addiction. “My father lost me to The Beast at cards. ” (Carter 60) shows how devalued the heroine is. There is also patriarchy played in this story. As the father and the beast holds the heroine in captivity and she has o voice in her own life. “My father said he loved me yet he staked his daughter on a hand of cards. ” (Carter 62) shows how helpless and out of control the heroine’s life is.

She is being used as an object and nothing more but a value of money and not life itself. The heroine’s sexual awakening is measured when she transforms into a beast. This also signifies sex and birth as a way of her transformation. Losing her virginity lick the skin off me! ” (Carter 69) she describes herself being reborn into a tigress. This act of rebirth signifies a man’s reclaim in sex, as a man controls a woman during intercourse. This also ties in with violence in sex as she sheds blood during intercourse and sheds her own skin to become awaken.

The themes delivered a powerful message of the pain and relief in finding one’s awakening. Through the use of feminist themes and ideas, writers Charlotte Perkins Gillian and Angela Carter sent powerful messages in their short stories. Charlotte Perkins Gillian mostly used the feminist themes such as personal resistance and gender identity to explain the underlying meanings in her stories. Characters in Sailing’s writings were rebellious and did not conform to social norms. As they, freely expressed themselves in their own way with a positive ending.

Contrary in Angel Carter’s writings, focused on themes such as women’s objectification and sexual awakening. The male characters usually portrayed having some essence of evil controlling the female character. The stories in Carter’s books are very dark and sexual. Some descriptions in her writing almost have a sense of pornographic image. Both writers gave us a grasp on how themes powerfully send messages throughout the stories. Adams, Terrier M. , and Douglas B. Fuller. “The Words Have Changed But the Ideology Remains the Same: Misogynistic Lyrics in Rap Music.

Particularly since the Industrial Revolution of circa 1790-1840 women have been subordinated in all walks of life by the patriarchal thinking of capitalist society. Humphries (1995) in Sociology 4th Edition looked at the traditional image of both men and women during the first half of the 20th Century and found that men were thought of as active, rational, less emotional and less sensitive whilst women were considered to be passive, irrational, emotional, weaker and more sensitive.

During the first half of the 20th Century, women’s social role was primarily within the home, showing a tendency towards domesticity, an instinctive predisposition towards nurturing and caring, being submissive towards and supportive of the male and having trivial interests. Women who had any role outside the home were generally in low paid, low skilled, part-time work. Men, however, traditionally held a social role outside the home and their position as father within the home was meticulously established and reinforced by women (Humphries, 1995 in Sociology 4th Edition). Therefore, patriarchy allows both sexes to defend the right to oppress and be oppressed.

Feminists have embraced the term “patriarchy” to refer to male supremacy in all its forms. However, the real power of patriarchy is not in physical force but in institutional control. It must be understood that Western culture has a definite male partiality based on the fact that its methods of production and its financial strategy are intrinsically capitalist (Walby, 1990).

The opinion of men is that they are more inclined towards issues which affect the efficient operation of social institutions and therefore, masculinity has for the most part governed social, economic and political concerns because of the rudimentary tenets on which traditional philosophy has been based.

Ideological concepts of morality have governed social norms and values within capitalist society since its origin in the late 18th Century. The family, the Church and educational establishments are all organisations of socialisation. The media also plays an important part in socialisation but is, in fact, nothing more than an instrument of politically and financially powerful groups within society whose philosophical beliefs are considered superior to those who are exposed to it.

The media can shape culture to some extent and it has been claimed that the same politically and economically dominant groups control both the media and, as a result, the culture. Therefore, it would be realistic to assume that the mass media can also control capitalist society’s morality in the form of philosophical infiltration by those who would profit most from a selection of ideological perceptions.

Political power is justified by social acceptance of the State’s norms and values. State authority uses formal control and concepts of morality to regulate behaviour and preserve the interests of the ruling classes. State intervention in moral issues, for example, benefit payments to single mothers, validates the authority they hold and allows the State to govern those who are deemed unable to be self-disciplined and totally morally degenerate.

Karl Marx states that from the moment of birth we are part of a social unit. He realised that individuals are not the creators of society but creatures of society and to this end he reasoned that the loss of individuality originates from the advancement of capitalist society. Marx claimed that what would seem to be a rational choice is, in fact, predestined by the class in which individuals find themselves. He critically analysed the ruling elite and dominant ideology that accompanied it to show how temporary, historically condition and produced features of society become everlasting facts of human nature.

Marx’s interest in the idea of “real” people, not the ideological notion of people, and their activities and interaction with each other, indicates his fixation with the economic structure of capitalism.

The Functionalist argument for the rationalisation of social inequality is based on the belief that there is a necessity for functional roles within capitalist society. Functionalist ideology provides the justification for a proletariat and the incentive for self-improvement. Emile Durkheim and Talcott Parsons, both world-renowned Functionalists, argue that greater inequality within society encourages more competition and, as a result, greater effectiveness.

The relationship between capitalist interests and dominant religious beliefs has been formed over several hundred years. The occupational authorities of any country with multi-religious philosophies are overwhelmingly Protestant Christian. Furthermore, business owners and individuals with high grades of expertise, in addition to commercially trained people, would also prove to be Protestant. However, religious association is not the cause of economic conditions but may be a result of them.

Gender inequalities within capitalist society have become accepted primarily because religious teachings encourage clear-cut moral standards that women ought to aspire to. Religious bodies bestowed the responsibility of guarding husband’s and children’s decency upon women. Sexual inequalities are not biologically established but are the unequivocal result of culturally determined gender roles within capitalist society.

Religious scriptures and Bible texts predominantly underpin society’s notions of morality. Countryman (1992) in Sociology 4th Edition found that biblical teachings about sexual behaviour are principally focussed in the direction of the control of women’s conduct and have their foundations based in social unease about purity and property rights over women and children.

The origins of capitalist society commenced in the 14th and 15th Centuries with Puritan and Calvinistic doctrines.

Puritan ideology was based on the notion of foregoing wealth on earth for future glory. The wealthy led exceptionally self-denying lifestyles, believing luxury to be a sin. They were particularly parsimonious and did not squander their accumulated wealth but merely reinvested it to further expand their economic activities. In so doing, they were unable to accomplish their substantial involvement in future financial expansion.

On the other hand, Calvinists openly flouted the commonly held belief that human beings are God’s instruments on earth. They believed that they were required by the Almighty to toil in a vocation that sanctioned His great glory. Perhaps more importantly, another aspect of Calvinism was the concept of predestination where only certain individuals would enter Heaven after death. The Calvinists believed that who would enter Heaven was predetermined by God and nothing could be done to change it. However, this belief caused such anxiety and consternation that “the Almighty” revised His position and deemed certain qualities worth of selection for life eternal! This is proof that dominant ideology can alter to suit humankind.

Calvinist ideology therefore gave credence to Max Weber’s argument that the fundamental nature of capitalism lay in this line of reasoning in that vocational devotion and material affluence became the most sought after qualities before God, which loaned substantial motivation towards economic achievement. Although Weber’s theory has been criticised by many, it offers a convincing, modern, economic and social explanation which has been indirectly prejudiced by something that appears to be undeniably abstract from it; that is, a collection of spiritual principles.

The English Reformation that took place particularly between 1529 and the early 1600’s resulted in a new form of control for the Church, not the elimination of that control. Monasteries either vanished or were reduced to a pile of stones and the contents of parish churches were destroyed. The newly dominant monarchy forced Acts of Parliament recognising the king as supreme head of the Church. By 1603, England’s aesthetically pleasant magnificence was no longer to be found in great churches but in the marvellous palaces of the monarchy and the stately homes of the nobility. Even for the working classes, the ceremonial splendour once found in Latin Mass was now only to be found in magnificent representation of Queen Elizabeth I (Lost Treasures of Britain).

The English Church was severed from Rome in 1532-33 and Thomas Cromwell was, in 1535 given the role of the king’s vicar-general. In 1538, Cromwell and his corrupt commissioners were told to demolish all well-known shrines. Relics were to be removed to the Tower of London and the shrine was ordered destroyed. At around the same time, Thomas Cromwell was also the key player in the dissolution of the monasteries (Lost Treasure of Britain).

Western definitions of religion correspond closely with a belief in one supreme being who commands us to behave in accordance with moral conventions of Christianity found in the Bible; the same moral standards that directly insubordinate women. Cahill (1996) indicates that Christian ethics may present convincing criticism of sexual and procreative activities, gender expectations and family forms, all of which dominate the female gender. Although Cahill (1996) indicates that this does not essentially suggest that gender differences are not inbuilt and grant the male gender power over the female gender in capitalist society, she adopts a feminist point of view, which tries to gain equal personal respect and equal social authority for both men and women.

Karl Marx believed that human beings endure harsh conditions, prejudices and discrimination because of religious indoctrination. The Bible gives accounts that justify inequalities of wealth and power, accounts of suffering and teach attitudes of non-resistance, for example, “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” and “whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also”.

In conclusion, it appears that the English Reformation, the destruction of shrines and relics and the dissolution of the monasteries all participated together to suppress the religious houses and secularise their property. However, religious teaching have not been concealed by these occurrences and it would appear that the Church Universal and the ruling classes have been working in partnership to control humankind’s morality since the early 16th Century.

Until recently, sociological studies of the family have concentrated upon the role of the family within society. Contemporary sociologists however have shown an increasing interest in the emotional relationships within the family unit. This is an important issue in sociology when looking at the role of the family, as the family is the only institution in society providing affection and emotional support. There is no other specialised unit that does this.

Most sociological perspectives view the family as a haven, compensating individuals for the harsh, cruel and potentially psychologically damaging reality of the outside world. The view that the family is a haven is mainly from a functionalist perspective. Marxists agree to a lesser extent whilst feminists certainly oppose such views. There are traditional views on the family like that of Talcott Parsons’, and critics of this view who view the family as a prison, such as Morgan, and feminist Anne Oakley.

Perhaps the most famous theory of the family is the view held by functionalist sociologist Talcott Parsons. He argues that the family performs two roles, the primary socialisation of children, and the stabilisation of adult personalities therefore agreeing with the idea that the family is a haven from the outside world. He states that people have an inborn need to be loved and cared for and now traditional communities and kinship networks of the early 20th Century have given way to isolated nuclear families, people are more dependent on the emotional support within that family unit.

Other functionalists support this view. Goode, for example, saw the family as being a place where a person could be treated as an individual compensating for the stresses of a non-personal modern society. Fletcher argued that a conjugal family was important as it depended upon emotional factors such as intimacy, closeness and intensity. Although the marriage rate is descending, the number of people choosing instead to cohabitate has increased. Few Marxists view the family as being a haven. Those that do, make a similar argument to functionalists.

Hunt and Hunt, in their study “panacea for Capitalism” constructed the argument that love, and family, provides a panacea, a cure-all, for the harsh realities of a capitalist society. The family, being an institution that changes in response to other sections of society, would change with the development of capitalism, thus the family becomes more important to its members as capitalism develops. Dorothy Smith, also a Marxist views the family as a haven in which to be free from surveillance, a place to organise our own lives without having to follow rules laid down by someone else.

Marxists who view the family as a haven argue that this is a challenge to capitalist society. The family is also viewed as a prison. Functionalist sociologist Morgan concentrated upon the dysfunctions of the family and found that two factors prevented the family from being a haven: Class differences within society means those who are well off can enjoy and take full advantage of what society has to offer. Those further down the social scale often find society opposing their interests. Life ends up as a struggle, which in turn leads to stresses and strains within the family.

Morgan also argued that even within the family inequalities exist. Family members have their own interests and aspirations. “For whom is the family functional? ” asks Morgan. It is usually the male head of the household who is well served by the functions of the family. Marxists also state that the family should not have to be seen as a haven from a capitalist society, that capitalism takes creativity and affection out of society, and steals away opportunities for personal growth. Barrett and McIntosh studied this in their work “The Anti-social family”.

They developed the concept of familialism, the ideology that the family is a small, isolated, conjugal unit where the husband is the breadwinner, the wife a domestic goddess and the children as happy, smiley and well behaved. What advertisers term “the cornflake family” has been put upon a pedestal and advocated as the normal and proper way to live. Barrett and McIntosh argued that this could make the family a prison in that any member who does not “fit in” will be repressed, and that individual can in turn become psychologically damaged.

Likewise, families who do not fit this ideology are seen as deviant and troublesome. Feminism tends to oppose the view of the family as a haven, choosing instead to see the family as a prison. The family is where women are oppressed and repressed. Within the family the woman is seen primarily as the housewife and mother, and in this environment men are given the control over women’s sexuality and fertility. Within the family, gender roles are taught at a very young age and this spills out into society as a whole, reinforcing gender inequalities.

According to feminists, the family is where women are placed under the threat of physical and mental abuse. Anne Oakley conducted a study, The Housewife and Housework. She views the family as a prison because of the nature of housework and its lack of status. Housework is monotonous, repetitive and relentless. It’s a job that goes un-rewarded, unpaid, unseen and unappreciated. Men are able to escape this routine, and children are able to escape also. Domestic labour is seen throughout society as the feminine role. Leonard looks more at the ideology of the family and how women are socialised to accept their role.

Women’s magazines and television programmes are all geared towards romance and domestic issues like cooking. Leonard argues that the family is a prison and completely unequal in that the husband offers the minimum level of support to his wife and children whilst she provides a lifetime of unpaid housework, years of child rearing and exclusive sexual services. Marriage therefore does not turn out anything like the romance promoted by the media. Feminism has helped highlight many issues facing women within society, but perhaps one of the biggest issues feminists have highlighted is that domestic abuse and violence.

This puts more emphasis on the family being a prison because those people living within this environment are far from the safety of a haven. There has been much difficulty in researching this because many women are too afraid to speak out. In conclusion, to a large extent, functionalists view the family as a haven because it provides stabilisation of adult personalities in order to cope with day-to-day life. However, if a family is dysfunctional then this can make the family a prison.

Marxists do not see why the family should be seen as a haven, but agrees that the family is a panacea from a capitalist society, and at best a challenge to capitalism. Feminists on the other hand do not view the family as a haven in any way. They see the family as a place in which there are inequalities that cause the oppression of women. Indeed the family is also an environment that can be far from safe, where women, and children are at risk from abuse. Sociologists do recognise that families do vary and what may be seen as a haven by some may be far from the reality for others.

Edward Morgan Forster was born in 1879 in London. His father died before he was born and subsequently it was women who brought him up, his mother and great-aunt Marianne Thornton. Foster spent his childhood largely in the female company and in their sheltering presence, who no doubt gave him knowledge of how women were perceived and where their role was in the society. It was his aunt who left Forster a legacy of eight thousand pounds, a considerable sum in those days when remembering that Margaret Schlegel lives very well on six hundred a year. The inheritance from his aunt enabled him to write in independence and security.

It is therefore unsurprising that Forster held a high opinion of women, and being brought up by them, not surprising that he would take ‘their side’. Forster exposes the constructed nature of gender and his own ambivalent relationship to traits coded ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ in his culture. However, there is substantial evidence to suggest that Forster was deeply troubled and preoccupied by his own gender identity in this period. This may be reason for Forster to side with women in the play. Forster uses Margaret as the central character in the novel and the most completely drawn.

Through certain parts of the novel, the narration seems to vacillate between Margaret and Forster. This shows that Forster is much more inclined to take the side of women rather than men. She is the centre of consciousness in nearly every scene. In chapter two Forster sums her up and sums up the cause of her fascination; she has ‘a profound vivacity, a continual and sincere response to all that she encountered in her path through life’. Forster seems to be always able to rise to the challenge of that description. Helen has a lot in common with Margaret.

We are told that she is much more beautiful than Margaret as well as being more impulsive, idealistic and uncompromising. Helen is a character who is ‘rather apt to entice people, and, in enticing them, to be herself enticed’. Forster presents Helen as an imaginative character although she often talks without thinking. Helen’s responses to life are intense, excitable and exaggerated. The difference presented by Forster is that men view life as a conquest to gain materialistic pleasure, which although may be enjoyed presently, they are not able to take theses pleasures with them.

Women differ, as Helen states in chapter twenty-seven, that money is not an end to all means, and that life is more about emotional conquest. However this is easy for Helen to say as she is set up for life with inheritance money. Therefore, money should not be an issue to Helen, which is proved when she tries to offer Leonard five thousand pounds. Forster’s central opposition between man and woman seems to be played out by Henry and Margaret, in which it is blatantly obvious that Forster sides with Margaret. This can be seen in the conversation on the levels of houses. Margaret recognizes that ‘ours is a female house….

It must be feminine and all we can do is see that it isn’t effeminate. Just as another house I can mention, but I won’t, sound irrevocably masculine, and all its inmates can do is see that it isn’t brutal’. Through Margaret Schlegel, the traditional terms of masculinity and femininity are scrutinized and are subjected to the demands of higher integration. Margaret’s point of view is ultimately not representative of a view that might be coded as essentially female or feminine. Forster is sensitive both to the essentialist conceptions of the female and the social coding of feminism.

Margaret is much the voice of Forster when speaking and underlines Forster opinions of women and the fact that he is very much on their side throughout debate and speeches in the novel. In conclusion, in my opinion, the fact that Forster was troubled by his own sexuality and the fact he was a homosexual would incline him to take the views of women. This is also propelled by the fact that his upbringing was done only by women in the form of his mother and his aunt. Forster’s inheritance ensured he would not have to labor in order to educate himself, so in fact may never of had much contact with ‘the real world’.