Outline and asses sociological explanations for workplace inequalities between men and women
Outline and asses sociological explanations for workplace inequalities between men and women Oakley notes that after the industrial revolution in Britain acts were passed to limit women working; in 1851 one in four married women worked whereas in 1911 one in ten worked. During the Victorian era the ideology that a woman's place was in the home became truly established and industrialisation led to the separation of men from the daily routine of domestic life. Now it is claimed that women suffer from four main inequalities in the workplace. Firstly, there is the much debated pay gap in which, even though legislation to stop unequal pay was introduced in the 1970's, the although narrowing pay gap is still visible between men and women. Secondly half of all females in employment are in part time employment; this form of employment is often less secure with fewer benefits. Thirdly, women suffer from vertical segregation; this is sometimes referred to as "the glass ceiling effect". Women are seemingly unable to achieve the higher ranking positions and are stopped from achieving managerial positions by an invisible barrier. Lastly, women are said to suffer from horizontal segregation which is the idea of gendered jobs. Women are more likely to have certain occupations which often reflect the "expressive" role outlined by Parsons in which women are claimed to be more caring,
Malthus got it right-we are doomed?
Malthus got it right-we are doomed? How far do you agree with this statement when discussing the population-resource relationship in the 21st century? In 1789 the Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus produced his 'Essay on the Principle of Population', which were based on two principles: first one being that the food supply would increase arithmetically over time, and the second one being that population would grow geometrically/exponentially. There would be a finite optimum population size (carrying capacity) in relation to food supply. So if the population would reach beyond this carrying capacity, it would lead to a decline in the standard of living - it would lead to war, famine and diseases. Nowadays, his prediction luckily is not the case. Since the 'Green Revolution' started in 1945, there has been an enormous increase in food supply provided by agricultural markets. The green revolution has enabled food production to keep pace with the increasing global population growth. The Green Revolution has provided some great benefits: "From 1950 to 1984, as the Green Revolution transformed agriculture around the world, grain production increased by over 250%"1 and "The world population has grown by about four billion since the beginning of the Green Revolution and most believe that, without the Revolution, there would be greater famine and malnutrition than the UN presently
Why did Alexander II Emancipate the Serfs in 1861?
Why did Alexander II Emancipate the Serfs in 1861? The emancipation of the serfs by Alexander II in 1861 was the inevitable result of a rising tide of liberalism in Russia, supported by the realisation that Russia's economic needs were incompatible with the system, and driven by the fear that that without reform the state itself could be shattered by revolution. Russia's defeat in the Crimean war was also a major influencing factor as "Defeat in the Crimean war laid bare Russia's weakness, so well conceived reforms were set in train and permitted the birth of politics... Russian tsars had learned little during the century: at its end, they were still claiming to be absolute rulers."[1][1] Alexander II came into power in 1855, as the successor of Nicholas I. He started his reign in a difficult position, as the defeat of the Crimean war in 1854 cast a shadow over the beginning of his reign. The peace treaty of Paris finally drew a conclusion to the war in 1856, Russia ultimately being defeated by Britain and France, leaving the Russian state feeling weak and vulnerable. The Russian war effort had been characterised by the bravery of the soldiers, but poor military performance and incompetence in the military leadership "The Crimean war with its record of official incompetence and the heroism of the serf army... put a seal on the matter."[2][2] However, "the
to what extent have conservatives supported one nation principles?
To what extent have Conservatives supported 'one-nation' principles? The belief that governments should be committed to reforms that make people feel part of the nation is a defining feature of one nation conservatism. The various factions of the ideology consist of differing degrees of one nation principles; in one nation Conservatism, this is the defining principle, in traditional Conservatism it is a minor consideration, whilst the New Right holds views that are against this belief. You should also be aware that ONC includes striking a pragmatic balance between business and the needs of the people, the idea of the government taking noblesse oblige and the idea of making decisions to keep the 'ship' afloat as opposed to directing it. Perhaps most obviously, one nation principles are at the centre of one nation conservatism. The idea of Britain being viewed as a nation is of great importance to one-nation thinkers and this is why they are committed to reforms that make people feel part of the nation. This brings in ideas of social responsibility and the belief that social reform is essential in order to preserve a fragile society; in terms of strengthening existing bonds, reducing resentment and making people feel part of the nation. However, a pragmatism that places great importance on maintaining the balance between social reform and a lack of interference in the
Why Did The First World War Break Out in 1914?
Why Did The First World War Break Out in 1914? The First World War was the most terrible war ever known due to the number of deaths that took place each day on the gory battlefields of the war. Altogether eight million soldiers lost their lives fighting in the trenches. The system of trenches stretched across Europe from the English Channel to Switzerland and soldiers faced their foe across a few hundred metres of churned up ground with barbed wire known as 'No Man's Land'. The grounds in and around the trenches were turned into a huge ocean of mud because of the rain and exploding bullets. It was impossible to attack the other side's trenches effectively because they were so greatly secured. Twenty million people were wounded and there was an extensive destruction, which ravaged cities and their civilian populations. The First World War lasted for four whole years and broke out in 1914 due to a number of reasons. The reasons that led the nations of Europe and later the world to go to war in 1914 are complex, and it is impossible to say the war started because of one single cause. There are a series of events, which derived in the early 19th century, which engulfed most of Europe by 4th August 1914. Some causes of the war were long-term whereas others were short term. One reason for the outbreak of the war in 1914 was the competition for colonies between the European
Compare and contrast the Functionalist and Marxist views of society.
Compare and contrast the Functionalist and Marxist views of society. Sociology has been classified as the last in a long line of emerging scientific disciplines which people have developed and explored in order to make sense of their world. Early theories such as the positivist approach of Comte, the functionalist views of Emile Durkheim and the conflict perspectives of Karl Marx have offered a view of why human beings behave as they do and how they fit together in society. Each theory has to some extent been shaped or influenced by the approach of others and many sociological explanations have comparisons or contrast that can be made. Browne once said "sociological perspectives centre on how much freedom or control the individual had to influence society" He goes on to comment on the two main approaches "structuralism is concerned with the overall structure of society and the way social institutions act as a constraint, or limit and control individual behaviour". Structuralism offers a view of the individual being controlled by the society they live in, Marx and Durkheim are similar in that they can both be described as structuralists, however their individual ideas are somewhat different. Functionalism was developed by Emile Durkheim, he believed like Comte that sociology should be viewed as a precise science and that society should be studied objectively. Durkheim
Assess the view that religion is a conservative force within society (40).
Assess the view that religion is a conservative force within society (40). A number of sociologists argue that religion is a conservative force in society, that is, it produces stability not change within society and it reinforces the shared needs and values of society. For some sociologists this is a positive effect - the view of consensus theorists, for others it is a negative one - the view endorsed by conflict theorists. Durkheim is a consensus theorist, sometimes referred to as the father of functionalism, he supports the view that religion is a conservative force in society, reinforcing the existing society of society. He argued that religion should not be explained in terms of human ignorance, but as a result of shared social needs. He adopted a broad definition of religion throughout his analysis and defined it as a unified belief system of beliefs about the nature of sacred things. For Durkheim, shared religious belief systems were central to societal consensus as they set rules for social interaction and offered social solidarity and value consensus. In his book, "Elementary Forms of Religious Life", he examined the sources of order and stability in society and highlighted the part that religion played in sustaining this order. Durkheim viewed religion as being a major source of social integration - all religious activity has one main function - the
Innocence and Experience in "Atonement" and "The Go-Between"
"Adam and Eve, on eating the apple, could not have been more upset than I was" (The Go-Between Ch. 10). Discuss the ways in which the movement from innocence to experience is portrayed in two novels. "A story of innocence betrayed, and not only betrayed but corrupted" - thus L.P. Hartley set out to write The Go-Between, a story of childhood, sexual awakening, social convention and class. Ian McEwan's Atonement, a postmodern novel heavily influenced by The Go-Between, shares all these themes and more as it explores the nature of innocence and experience. The Go-Between and Atonement are most notably Bildungsromans - novels which chronicle the "coming of age" of a child. While many novels of the genre feature a movement from innocence to experience in the protagonist, both Leo and Briony, the narrators of these two novels, undergo an exceptionally profound and disastrous loss of innocence. The dual narrative voices of the two novels are themselves both innocent and experienced: the naivety of the juvenile narrator is overlaid with the shrewd hindsight of their aged self. This is used to dramatic effect in Atonement, when the older Briony bluntly states the imminent disaster - "Within the half hour Briony would commit her crime" - creating an atmosphere of prolepsis, or narrative anticipation. The Go-Between similarly hints at the forthcoming tragedy, albeit through the
Extended Essay: Bismarck and The Unification of Germany
Extended Essay To what extend does Otto Von Bismarck deserve his reputation as the man who united Germany? On the 18th of January, 1871, Bismarck proclaimed the German Empire in the Hall of Mirrors in the Palace of Versailles. Germany had been unified be Prussia, under its prime minister Otto von Bismarck. The unification involved three wars and, it has been claimed, was not created by a desire for nationalism but a struggle to determine Prussian dominance within the German states. Up until World War II, it was widely accepted that Bismarck alone was responsible for unification. However, modern historians agree that Bismarck did not begin unification from nothing and have identified other factors influencing unification and the spread of nationalist ideas from 1815. These historians argue that if it weren't for factors such as the Zollverien, cultural and political nationalism and the Strength of Prussia and decline of Austria, Bismarck would not have been nearly as successful. Before Bismarck burst onto the political scene in 1862, it is clear to see that the foundations for unification were already laid, this is shown in the economic strength of Prussia prior to 1871. The Zollverien was and important factor as it brought many German states together economically and excluded Austria.
Is History a Nightmare
'History' Stephen said, 'is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake' (James Joyce, Ulyssess). Is history a 'nightmare' and, if so, is it possible to awake? History has been represented by some as a triumphal march. As a progressive, unlinear, emancipating process. Fukyama, for instance, has heralded liberal democracy as the 'end of history'; while orthodox Marxism also posits a liberating 'end goal' in the form of 'communism'. History is understood as teleological and determined; a dream. It will be argued that history is more accurately understood as a 'nightmare'; as contingent and determined by conflict or struggle within specific networks of power-relations. In this respect, crude, reductive, teleological understandings of history are rejected, in favour of those that analyse history as based on contingent inter-relationships between structure, agency and discourse. Paradigms such as historical materialism, post-structuralism and critical-discourse analysis will be drawn on to show how relations of power and domination are constructed through conflict. It is these relationships which are the 'nightmare' of history; the nightmare of 'power' and the 'conflict' over it.1 Historical scholarship in historicising social relationships, de-naturalises relationships of power and showing the agency of historical actors can act as a critique to past and present
