Stereotypical Gender Characteristics

Stereotypical Gender Characteristics How Stereotypical Gender Characteristics are Shaped by Society Generally, when comparing the differences between males and females, you immediately think of their biological body parts. However, there is another way to differentiate males and females; by their behaviours. Males and females are commonly associated with opposing characteristics. That is to say, men are generally seen as being more aggressive while women are associated to being more nurturing (Shaw, 150 class lecture, Oct 19). What is it exactly that creates this difference in behaviour? Some sociologists suggest that it is due to biological factors. However, I believe that these differences in behaviour are the result of societys influences. The social process known as gender socialization is established in early childhood and further developed and supported throughout life (Shaw, 150 class lecture, Oct 19). At an early age, you are introduced to gender differences by your parents. Throughout your childhood and adolescence, these gender roles are supported by the media, the school s and your peers. If you consider some of the other cultures in the world you will notice that the behaviours of the males and females there arent the same as what we expect here in North America (Haaland Schaefer, 2009). I believe that gender isnt defined by ones biological sex but rather the stereotypical behaviours that are constructed by society. In this essay, I will be addressing a few important agents of socialization and their impact in constructing these stereotypical gender roles. Parents: The first agent of socialization From the moment you entered this world, your parents applied social and cultural stereotypes about femininity and masculinity on to you (Haaland Schaefer, 2009). They did so by pre-selecting the colours of your room, your wardrobe, the toys you play with and when you were old enough, they designated certain chores for you to do (Peters, 1994). All these factors played a crucial role in the gender socialization process. For all you girls, your parents probably gave you a pink room, made you wear dresses and gave you dolls and easy-bake ovens to play with. They probably described you as being â€Å"pretty†, â€Å"cute†, â€Å"sweet† or â€Å"angelic† rather than being â€Å"tough†, â€Å"rugged† or â€Å"strong† (Haaland Schaefer, 2009). In a study about the distribution of chores at home, the boys were more likely to end up with maintenance, yard and car work where as girls were more likely to be given housework like laundry and dish washing (Peters, 1994). Because of this designation, boys and girls grow up performing the tasks that they are more familiar with. When you consider the types of toys that parents buy for their children, you will notice a general trend. Boys tend to get cars, trucks, building blocks and action figures (Martin, 1998). The toy cars and trucks establish an early interest in vehicles. The building blocks emulate construction work and architecture. The action figures not only suggest physical play but they also illustrate the ideal body image of men. If you look at the male action figures these days, they all illustrate exaggerated muscular characteristics (Haaland Schaefer, 2009). It is likewise for the girls. However, instead of getting cars and blocks, they get Barbie dolls and baby simulation dolls. The Barbie dolls had equally exaggerated body images. They left the impression that girls needed have ultra thin figures (Haaland Schaefer, 2009). These toys all served a common purpose of establishing what it means to be a â€Å"boy† and a â€Å"girl†. Parents also had control over what movies and TV shows they wanted their kids to watch. This leads to the next agent of socialization; the media. The Subtle Messages Expressed by the Media The media has a very strong influence in gender socialization. When I say the media, I am referring to Disney movies, Saturday morning cartoons and video games. Disney movies were a huge part of every childhood. In a video regarding the gender stereotypes portrayed in Disney films, men and women were commonly portrayed in regards to their stereotypes (Shaw, 150 Lecture). That is to say, men were all illustrated as brave, muscular, aggressive people who always save the day with physical violence. Women were portrayed as being thin, delicate, helpless people who always needed to be saved by the males. Children are very impressionable, so of course they will want to be just like their favourite Disney characters. How will they go about doing this? By emulating these stereotypical behaviours. Cartoons and video games only help to support these stereotypes (Dietz, 1998). In cartoons and video games, you are more likely to see male protagonists who save the day. Also, you are very likely to see females either as the support character who cheers on the male protagonist on his goals or as the helpless damsel in distress. Video games are no different. Take the Mario brother for example. Here you see two male heroes who have to save a princess from a monster. Movies, cartoons and video games are all the same in the sense that they either lack representation or misinterpret females (Butler, Ciccone, Petrin, Rawlings, Yi, 2002). Peer Pressure and the Hidden Curriculum The next major agents of socialization are the peers and the school. It is through the parents and media that the gender roles are learned. It is at school with teachers and friends that these gender roles are reinforced. In the study conducted by Martin (1998), she observed the daily behaviours of pre-school students. Martin noticed that the boys tended to play with building blocks where as the girls liked to play dress up. When it came to clothing, boys wore primary colours, black, green and orange (Martin, 1998). Girls were commonly seen to be wearing pink. It was observed that about 61% of the girls in the class were wearing pink and roughly 25% were wearing dresses. The girls were frequently complimented by the teacher as looking very pretty and cute (Martin, 1998). Another aspect that Martin examined was the typical sitting behaviour of the children. This was classified as being either relaxed or formal. It was observed that 80% of the boys sat â€Å"relaxed† while 82% of the girls sat in a â€Å"formal† manner (Martin, 1998). Martin also noticed that the teacher reinforced formal sitting behaviour more strongly for the girls than for the boys. Not only were the teachers supporting appropriate gender behaviours but fellow peers were as well. In this situation, one little girl wearing a dress-like shirt is leaning her body over to create a â€Å"tunnel†. As she leans, her shirt rises up exposing her back. This is when another female student comes and pulls the shirt back over her bare skin and gives it a pat to keep it in place (Martin, 1998). This illustrates two things: one of them is that fellow peers reinforce the â€Å"appropriate† gender behaviours and that these â€Å"appropriate† behaviours are already imbedded into children at a very young age. These â€Å"appropriate† gender behaviours are continually followed and further developed throughout elementary, secondary and post secondary. In an experiment conducted on university students (Haaland Schaefer, 2009), students were asked to behave in ways that they regarded to be violating gender norms. Even at the university level, these students identified the same associating gender behaviours as they would have in their childhood. Cultural Differences Lead to Differences in Gender Behaviours Although you may believe that all males and females act as we expect them to, you are not entirely correct (Haaland Schaefer, 2009). Gender behaviours vary from culture to culture. An anthropologist by the name of Margaret Mead explains her findings in favour of gender socialization. If biology did in fact determine the differences between the sexes then cross-cultural differences, like the ones that Mead encountered, should not exist (Haaland Schaefer, 1998). In her studies of three different cultures in New Guinea she noticed that the behaviours of the males and females differed quite significantly (Haaland Schaefer, 2009). Mead describes the typical behaviours of the three cultures: â€Å"In one [the Arapesh], both men and women act as we expect women to act-in a mild parental responsive way; in the second [the Mundugumor], both act as we expect men to act-in a fierce initiating fashion; and in the third [the Tchambuli], the men act according to our stereotypes for women-are catty, wear curls, and go shopping-while the women are energetic, managerial, unadorned partners.† As we can see, the different cultures are a crucial factor in determining the differences in behaviours between the sexes. If males and females were biologically meant to act and think in a certain way, then there wouldnt be so much variation between cultures. Conclusion In North America, we have the perception that males need to be aggressive, macho and muscular while females are thinner, smaller and more nurturing. These perceptions are taught to us at an early age and are reinforced throughout our lives. Starting from childhood, we begin to learn about and emulate these gender behaviours. With the help of our parents, Disney movies, toy figures, school and peers, these gender behaviours are more strongly embedded into our minds. Gender differences are constructed by societys influences. Mead clearly observed the presence of cultural conditioning and its effects on the three different cultures in New Guinea. Although our sexes are biologically defined, the way we associate our behaviours and characteristics are not. Our socialized genders are defined by the culture and society that surrounds us. Bibliography Butler, A., Ciccone, A., Petrin, M., Rawlings, T., Yi, W. (2002). Gender Role Socialization and Inequality. 360-361. Retrieved from http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/CASAE/cnf2002/2002_Papers/rtbutler_aetal2002w.pdf Dietz, T. L. (1998). An Examinationof Violence and Gender Role Portrayals in Video Games: Implications for Gender Socialization and Aggressive Behaviour. Sex Roles. (38). 425-442. Retrieved from http://springerlink.metapress.com.proxy.lib.sfu.ca/content/r326135512365r40/fulltext.pdf Haaland, B., Schaefer, R. T. (2009). Sociology: A brief introduction. (3rd Canadian Ed.). Canada: McGraw-Hill. Martin, K. A. (1998). Becoming a Gendered Body: Practices of Preschools. American Sociology Review. (63) 494-511. Peters, J. F. (1994). Gender socialization of adolescents in the home: research and discussion. Retrieved from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2248/is_n116_v29/ai_16477249/

Role of Gender in William Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet Essays

Everyone in the literary world is familiar with Shakespeare's two â€Å"star-crossed lovers† Romeo and Juliet. Their love story, doomed by fate and feuding families has been an inspiration to many other literary works, movies and even music. Yet it is unknown what makes these couple’s story to popular and interesting across the globe. Is it their youth, their love of first sight quickly followed by their terrific death, the tragic events that lead to their demise, or a mixture of possibilities? One aspect of the play that causes an image in the reader' mind and has a profound impact is the exquisite language of Shakespeare. The language gives each character a distinct personality and character; each character has a different sense of humor, wit and love. Shakespeare’s words show society in Verona, different beliefs, values, and behaviors in both men and women are present in his play. The main characters of the play, Romeo and Juliet, are even affected by these be liefs and value, but mainly role of gender. Men in Verona are violent, sexual dominant, and take priority in deciding what happens or doesn’t happen. Every action they take is an expression of showing to the other men how dominant and powerful they are. The men choose violence as their first choice of solving their problems for example: in the opening scene, the Capulets and Montagues get into a brawl for no apparent reason other than their long feud. The two noble families do not get along well particularly due to the feud between them, the Capulets and the Montagues. During their first brawl, on of the servants of the Capulets, Sampson, states: â€Å"’Tis true, and therefore women, being the weaker vessels, are ever thrust to the wall; therefore I will push Montague’s men from the... ... â€Å"If that thy bent of love be honorable, thy purpose marriage, send me word to-morrow† (2.2.143-144). Juliet’s mind is obsessed with sexual thoughts more than a woman of her time. Her thoughts are portrayed as words times before they marry, â€Å"O, I have bought the mansion of a love, but not possess’d it, and though I am sold, not yet enjoy’d. So tedious is this day† (3.2.26-28). Juliet defies her parents many times when they are attempting to marry her with Paris. She hastily disagrees with them eventhough she is not supposed to. At the end of the play, Romeo becomes very heartbroken and feels great melancholy as he is seeing his beloved lying cold in the tomb and takes his life with poison, a method of suicide mostly committed by females. Juliet, upon seeing her husband dead, stabs herself with Romeo’s dagger in a violent manner reflecting her masculine personality.

The Philippines And The World Market :: essays research papers

The Philippines and the World Market   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The Philippines is considered to be one of the most westernized countries in Asia. It has strong ties to the United States and the United Nations. In fact, It is the only charter member of the U.N. in all of Southeast Asia.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The United States has a very close relationship with the economy and culture of the Philippines. For instance, Filipinos have a strong resentment toward communistic countries. During the cold war, the Philippines supported America by consistently being hostile toward communist countries, and did not maintain diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union or any other communist state.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The United States is the largest foreign consumer of Philippine products. In many ways the survival of the philippine economy depends on the united States. We purchase almost all of the sugar exports, most of the coconut oil, embroidery, at least half of the base metals, and a fourth of the lumber. The United States supplies most of the Philippine imports of machinery, dairy products, cotton, papers, drugs, automobiles and much or the petroleum products. Although countries like Japan, Canada Australia, and New Zealand are getting more and more involved in trade with the Philippines, America remains to be the Philippines most important trading partner.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  When America acquired the Philippines and established free trade in 1909, the economy of the islands was tied to that parent country. As a result, the Philippines became almost entirely dependant upon United States markets. Thus, America has had a strong influence on not only the economy of the Philippines, but also the politics of it.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The United States established a public education system in the Philippines in the early 1900 ¹s. Although they were not American schools they had many similarities. American teachers were used as well as American books.

Cold environments Case Study- Alaska Essay

Location * State in the United States-international boundary with Canada to the east, arctic ocean to the north * Largest state in United States by area, however least densely populated Economy * GDP in 2007: $64,333 * Per capita personal income : $40,042, rank :15th in nation * Oil and gas industry dominates the Alaskan economy * More than 80% of states revenues derived from petroleum extraction * Main export : seafood , agriculture represent only fraction of economy * Largest employers: * Providence health and services : 4000+ av. Monthly employment in 2010 * Walmart: 3000-3259 av .monthly employment 2010 History * First oil claims in Alaska made in the 1890, noted oil sea pages on iniskin bay and cold bay- not pursued by Russians * 1898- first Alaskan wells drilled in Iniskin Peninsula * Alaska’s first productive oil drilling operation was at Katalla, on the Gulf of Alaska, south of the Copper River delta * In 1911 several new wells in the district began to produce significant oil, costs not big enough to justify extraction * In 1960, following the statehood of Alaska and the creation of the state natural resources agencies, oil companies bought exploration leases for work in Cook Inlet * The boom in economic development and population growth after the discovery of oil was immediate and still continues Types of Development in Alaska * Oil and Gas industry- major oil fields developed along central north slope * Oil production accounts for 93% of Alaska’s unrestricted general fund revenues. * Since statehood, Alaska has received $164 billion in revenues from oil * Development in the fishing industry- sea provides endless harvest worth billions of pounds. Over 3 million lakes, 3000 rivers and 34 000 miles coastline- bountiful fishing regions in the world * Salmon fishing industry- worth $11 billion a year * Provide thousands of jobs, long term economic engine * Pollock fishery- 1,252,000 million metric tons- 2.7 billion ponds annum * Seafood- top export commodity. 2009- 1.6 b dollars. Accounted for 50% states total exports. * Seafood processing accounts 71% of manufacturing jobs in ALK. * Fishing industry- generated 54 000 jobs- short seasonal * Mining- historically a cornerstone of alaska’s economy. Today, mining industry brings broad range of benefits- offering highest paid jobs in the state. * Produces zinc, lead, copper , gold, silver, coal * Alaska’s 7 largest mines Provided more than 2,250 full time jobs of 9500 total mining ind jobs in state * Mining creates public revenue by paying state and local taxes * Help support local economies in both urban and rural Alaska. * Issues: spent $300 million on exploration last year * drilling costs and fuel expenses have risen sharply * Facts and economic impact-cumulative value of mining industry: $4.4 bil. 2011 * Minerals are the states second largest export commodity. Accounted for 31% of states export total- zinc and lead from Red Dog mine * Approximately 200 placer mines produced 70,000 ounces of gold, as well as platinum, in Alaska in 2011. In addition to Alaska’s active precious-metals mining industry, there were more than 120 active rock quarries, and sand and gravel operations throughout the state. Pressures on Cold Environment * Alaska is unique state- economic development in it’s remote, petroleum based economy- resembles oil rich developing nations than other US states * Realtively small size of the Alaskan economy can discourage production for local use. * Geography wise- their location is at a disadvantage. Difficult to transport oil to other countries * Trans Alaska pipeline * Pipeline flows through natural biomes, upsets animal trails, carries potential of a devastating leak * Woodland destroyed- also people’s homes affected

American involvement In N. Africa during world war II (Revised)

The second world II was a world wide conflict which started in 1939 and ended in 1945. The war was fought in different places in the world. One was fought in Asia at around 1937, the other in Europe in 1939 with the invasion of Poland by Germany. Another one was also fought in African continent. It led the world nations to split into two that is. Allies (Britain and America) and the axis (Germany and Italy) The Second World War started when Hitler invaded Poland on September first in 1939.About million Australians fought in the Second World War in campaigns against Germany and Italy in Europe, North Africa, Mediterranean and against Japan in South East Asia as well as in other parts of the Pacific. The main focus in this paper will be to discuss on the US military involvement in North Africa during the Second World War. In 1942, November, United Kingdom military forces in conjunction with US military forces staged war against the French North Africa. It was the result of the long con tentious argument between American planners of war and those of Britain.The turbulence of this argument was calmed by the American president’s Franklin D Roosevelt intervention. American dream about the Second World War in 1942 was to attack and defeat Germany before proceeding to Asia to see the harm the Japanese were causing to Pacific territories. In the same year, the Soviet Army was far much pressed by the Germany-panzers division who were leveling attacks on Russia. Some American planners thought it was not necessary to attack North Western Europe.They planned that come 1943, the American army would be well prepared, trained and equipped to meet the Germany’s aggressive troops. The American planners believed that its army’s knowledge and resources could help them to accomplish their mission of bringing Germany troops down. The British military leaders under the field marshal Alan Brooke (Dennis P. 2002; 78) adopted a different approach. They never thought it wise to start launching their attacks in 1942. The main reason why they were opposed to this idea was because taking such a move would force United Kingdom to bear much of the military burden.At this time, they could not have afforded to have a division in the army because they were experiencing a fierce fight against Germany which had already inflicted a lot of harm to their army. Most of their military had met stiff resistance of the Wehrmatch in France during the disastrous 1940 campaign. At this time their forces under field marshal Erwin Rommel, they had done practically nothing to end or reduce the German military process in North Africa and in Libya. After the war, Brooke found the strategy of the Marshal very incompatible and that he did not appreciate what the operations in France would mean.He could not figure out how the Germans could reinforce their attacks about three to four times faster than theirs and he could not understand how they could suffer from the shortage of sea transport if the Mediterranean was not opened. The British opposed this idea though America promised to provide the invading forces. They wanted the Americans to clear the axis force in the Mediterranean shores of North America and open up that great inland sea for the allied convoys to move in.This culminated into a deadlock that made Brooke to consider switching the America army’s emphasis from European theatre of operations to the pacific, but Roosevelt the then president of America could not accept such an idea that was central to their war strategy. This emphasy from Britain never worked to the Americans instead it led Roosevelt to do something that Winston Churchill would never dream of doing. In fact he intervened and overruled his advisers who used to advise him on war matters. This was in the summer of 1942.He ordered his generals to direct their forces to the French North Africa to support the British proposal for landing along the coast of North Africa. He did this so that he could divide the attention Germans were giving to European war. He wanted to divide the concentration of German because he thought that if he did not do that, then he would come to face German some where in Europe. He knew that his move would be embraced by Britain though it was only done due to political necessity and national interests. At this time the British soldiers had no choice but to gang with USA in attacking Morocco and Algeria.From this time the attention that German had on war in Europe, half of it shifted to the battle in the Mediterranean. The plan was well strategized. About 65,000 men under lieutenant General Durlght D. Eisenhower were to be transported by the allies to invade Casablanca, Roan and Algers. These were the possessions of the French North Africa. Everything went according the plan and they had a lot of quick success that was attributed to the fact that the Axis attention was focused elsewhere. This time the Germans were trying to sub jugate Stalingrad and the Caucasus.In Egypt at the same period, the Rummel’s African Korps renewed their offensive attacks on the British area of interests. The British forces under Lieutenant General Bernard Montgomery organized his army to liaise the move of the Rummel’s the Montgomery’s force entered into a fierce battle with the axis forces. The axis powers had no hope of winning this war and by early November Rummel’s armies yielded back to Libya. The move they took was against the wishes of Hitler who had ordered them to keep soldering on. Hitler never at any time contemplated of defeat. He would rather die that witness such humiliations (Ambrose S.2001; 58) At the onset of November 1942, the allied forces had started to build up their ships at Gibraltar. The German spies were aware but they down played the idea as simply as another large supply convoy for reinforcing Malta. The Germany’s companion had a different view; Italy was not so sure of this though Germany never thought about this seriously but had been ignoring Italy’s decision. In November eighth 1942 the foreign German foreign minister Ulrich Joachim who was also known as Von Ribbentrop was so sure about the American troops who had landed in Algerian as well as in Moroccan ports.These allied forces leveled attacks that had positive results as it was expected, the allied forces thought that the dissident French military officers who had supported them would turn against them however, this did not happen but to their surprise the Vichy French government just as it happened in Dakar and in Syria in the following year, they fought against the Allied forces though they did not manage to keep off the invading Germans in France and in Tunisia in the same year, that is 1942. The Vichy French military men couldn’t have resisted the German who were very adamant and determined to crash the French’s down.The Vichy’s weapons were not up to the standard when compared with those of the Germans. They used tanks while he German possessed combat aircrafts though they were not enough. The Germans never trusted the French Vichy government and that was why they could never let them to modify their war technology. They thought that French’s would rise up against them if let to acquire modern weapons. Due to lack of proper weapons the Vichy French’s were unable to keep sustained resistance against the Allied forces who comprised of British soldiers and America soldiers(Atkinson R 2003;152)In the initial stage of the war, America thought the French North Africa would not attack the Americans though this is not what happened. Though they tried to resist they could not resist the American’s advancements. They had no effective troops that would manage to keep Americans at bay. Though the American’s landings defeated the Frenchs, not all of them were successful. In fact a landing at Fedela costed the transpor t Leonard wood its 21 landing crafts and many lives perished. Also in another landing, the transport Thomas Jefferson 16 crafts was destroyed completely beyond revival.The most affected landing was of the transport canal which lost 18 out of its 25 crafts and in the second wave; five of them were ruined leaving only two boats that could carry troops and other supplies. There was serious landing opposition at Mehdia by the French forces. The landing was not safe and was very dangerous. By November 10th, the Americans under major general Lucian Truscott were able to capture the airfield from the hands of French military men. This was as a result of a very heavy naval gun fire between French’s and Americans but later after the negotiations between French leader and the allies in Algeria, fighting stopped.On 8th November 1992, the infantry division had already actualized its dreams in almost all areas apart from St. Cloud where they met a very strong French force. During this tim e the combat was spearheaded by Roosevelt who was by then who was brigadier general. However, the landings begun to be interfered with by the rising surfs on 8th of November, the landing activities were to be suspended. In the following day the Vichy government tried to counter attack but they met a lot of resistance from Allied force who had support from air bases and naval baseOran was secured from the hands by the American though the French looked like they would never go but an armistice was signed when the confronting parties came together. The most operation assignment that the allied forces faced was at the port of Algiers. The French had enough ground force plus 52 fighter aircrafts. They also had 39 bombers. The port was heavily guarded so there was no way the British’s and Americans could have an easy access to the port. The American troops of the 168th regimental combat landed on the West while the 39th combat team went to the East of the port and they raided the p ort.They used two British destroyers which carried the royal navy personnel and the American troops. Before they could succeed, one of the destroyers was destroyed and it had to go back immediately while the other one succeeded and crossed the barriers. These forces that succeeded captured the power station and petroleum tank firm and the Frenchs responded to this attack immediately. After some time when the 168th combat group failed to turn up, the American commander was forced to surrender his troops. The North Africa mission was called â€Å"operation torch† and the city that was their target was Casablanca and was under the command of Eisenhower.These nations (Sam M. 2006; 102) were fighting for the control of the Suez Canal that linked Africa with the Middle East. Suez Canal was the inlet of oil from the Middle East and other raw materials from Asia. Due to the mechanization of their armies, oil was a very crucial commodity and because Britain which had already a mechani zed army it totally relied on oil from the Middle East. Britain used Suez Canal as a link to her overseas dominions. This was all made possible by the Mediterranean Sea hence, the struggle. This struggle started at around 1935 when Ethiopia was invaded by Italy which by then had made Somali land its colony.The move frightened Egypt which was not yet a British colony. They started getting worried of its imperialistic aspirations thus in order to protect its interest and country, it allowed Britain to station its army in its territory so as to keep off any advances from Italy. Thereafter, Britain and France took upon themselves the responsibility of maintaining naval control over the Mediterranean with the main British’s base at Alexandria, Egypt. The British and American troops met little resistance at Algiers, Oran and Casablanca on 8th of November 1942. The war took place in the North African desert.By the time the war took place the Italian dictator Mussolini had a better e quipped army than that of the Britain and America. He had about a million soldiers who were based in Libya while Britain had only 3600 soldiers who were based in Egypt. They were supposed to protect the Suez Canal and the oil fields in Arabia. At this time the Italians were a threat to Britain. They had already started showing interest in the red sea and Suez Canal supply routes. The North Africa campaign in the beginning was hampered by lack of enough supplies on both sides but later they got equipped.Tough battles took place which either rendered one group to advance against each other along the supply routes. Many of these fights took place in the Far East region out of the Mediterranean where they enjoyed free transport (Breuer W. 1985; 26) In April 1941, the allied forces were under the leadership of General Bernard Montgomery. While the British troops worked to keep Germans forces at bay to the West, the US forces were supposed to confront the Frenchs in North Africa underâ₠¬  Operation Touch† The main reason for this reason for this operation was to take over Morocco which was already a French colony, to take Algeria and Tunisia.They wanted to offer support to their colleague in the Libyan Desert. They also wanted to make Mediterranean shipping route free to their ships and for other major operations in North Africa. They hoped that they would force the axis of out of the region. They also wanted the axis to reduce their concentration on the Russian forces or in other words, they wanted the Axis forces to divide their war attention between North Africa and Russia. The attack took Germans by surprise because they did not expect it to happen. Later, the French stopped being hostile to the allied forces and allowed them to nave access to Tunisia.Rommel led his armies to various defensive operations. One of the most key operations was of the Kasserine pass where American defenses were crashed by Germans modern tanks. This operation saw 1000 allied troops dead and hundred of them were held prisoners by Germans. They also lost most of their fighting equipments. Though the axis powers thought they were winners, to the allied forces was an awakening call. They went back to their drawing board, assessed their weaknesses and came up with the way forward (Funk A. L. 1974; 86)Americans never gave up; they sent Rommel back to conquer the Kasserine pass so that they could get the Merith line. This time, the axis forces gained advanced and suppressed the resistance that until they let 275000 prisoners free. The axis forces in Africa surrendered on may 2nd 1943 after about 350,000 soldiers were captured by the allied forces and 70,000 were casualties. After they quit from the war, the stage was left open for Italian campaign. The axis surrendered because of ruthlessness of ‘the operation retribution’ which was designed to evacuate German and Italian forces from Tunisia.About 897 were held captives, 653 escaped and were assum ed to have might drowned. In conclusion, we have seen how the North African war costed many lives. Many people perished and others were injured. Though the war was took place in Africa, it was not as fierce that one in Europe. These wars were fought by these nations to protect their national interests. No country wanted their competitors to have an access or even go near its spheres of influence. Another reason for the fight was to gain supremacy.The Allied Forces were determined to silence Germany and its colleagues which were proving to be a big threat in Europe. Their plan worked as it was expected that is, they engaged Germany to another front so as to divide its concentration on war in Europe. So, it was not war for the sake of war but war for different reasons. In this war America in conjunction with Britain were the main aggressors. They left North African countries highly damaged. A lot of people perished while others were injured. The harm this American led war did was more than what one could have expected.Reference: Dennis P. The oxford Companion to Australian Military History. Melbourne. Oxford University press. 2002; 78 Breuer W. Operation Torch: The Allied Gamble to Invade North. St. Martins Press. 1985; 26 Funk A. L. The Politics of Torch, University press. 1974; 86 Sam M. At all costs: How crippled and two American Merchant mariners Turned the Tide of world WarII. Random House. 2006; 102 Ambrose S. The good Fight: How World War II Was Won. Atheneum. New York. 2001; 58 Atkinson R. An army at Dawn The war in North Africa 1942-1943. Newyork: Henry Holt. 2003; 152

The Sundale Clubs

The Sundale Club I. Problems A. Macro 1. Division within organization due to poor relationships among personnel. 2. Lack of leadership and direction within organization. B. Micro 1. Johnson’s (reputed) behavior. 2. Loss of members. 3. Chain-of-command difficulties: Frank Havens unable to talk to boss, Bob Watts uninterested in problem. 4. Poor staff morale; treatment of Pat indicates problem. II. Causes 1. No recognition/follow-through for staff. Pat overlooked for promotion. 2.Personal relationship between Chuck Johnson and Ted Ellis detracts from goals of organization and from staff morale. 3. Bob’s upcoming retirement detracts from interest in problems. III. Systems affected 1. Structural – personal relationships and director’s lack of interest hurt chain-of-command effectiveness. 2. Psychosocial – low morale within staff due to favoritism, disinterest, loss of membership, lack of direction of system. 3. Technical – none apparent. 4. Manag erial – organization’s purpose and source of money undermined by personal interests and lack of direction.Managers who had authority, such as Bob Watts, are unwilling to take action. 5. Goals and values – there is no sense organization goals among management or staff despite declining membership. Staff and even some managers are increasingly interested in protecting their jobs or finding another job elsewhere. Consequently, there is little concern for providing service to the membership. IV. Alternatives 1. Leave as is. 2. Let Bob Watts retire; explain problem to new director. 3. Unite staff (as Carol has started); include in meeting with new director/board. 4.Carol Happ hire OD practitioner to intervene and unite staff, but this will be difficult as Watts seems to be â€Å"coasting† until retirement. V. Recommendations Realistically, not much can happen until Bob Watts retires. Before Watts retires, some of the staff could unite under the leadership of C arol Happ and meet with Bob. But this has definite risks, particularly for any staff under Ted Ellis. Approach Watts from viewpoint of helping increase memberships and how unity, etc. , is needed for this to occur. If Happ and the staff can gain Watts’ support, hire an external OD practitioner.

Book Critique Family to Family Essay

Author Information The authors of the book are Jerry Pipes and Victor Lee. Content Summary In the book, Family to Family, Families Making a Difference, the writers detail the major premise of the work within its first few pages: â€Å"Family to Family will help you discover God’s purpose for your family, develop a family mission statement, establish core values, make time for quality and quantity family time centered around God’s purposes, and equip you to lead your children to Christ and mentor them spiritually† (3). The book’s purpose is to maximize family time in the Lord, bringing family members closer together by helping them actualize their standing first in Christ, and then as they relate and interact with each other. The book promotes the idea of discovering â€Å"the critical link between being on mission as a family and passing the baton of your faith on to your children† (3). This line of thought is prevalent in the book and it seems to summarize the mission of the writers. The book views itself as being based and rooted in the solid foundation of the scriptures, and the authors express as much: â€Å"The bottom line–God’s plan for the family has been revealed in His Word†¦ The success of our families will be determined by our commitment to know and live the principles of God’s Word† (3). In the first chapter of the book, the writers make the contention that many families are not healthy and are not spending quality time with one another. The writers reference research gathered from The American Family Association and George Barna. Through the accumulated research, the writers state that, â€Å"only 34 percent of America’s families eat one meal together each day. (In addition) the average father spends only eight to 10 minutes a day with his children. This includes meal times.† (6) Another alarming statistic that they present to their audience is that â€Å"only 12 percent of America’s families pray together, (and) the average couple spends only four minutes of uninterrupted time together a day† (6). After the writers finish sharing some alarming statistics, they proceed to identify what a healthy Christian family should look like. They call for persons to examine their own families and to ask the following questions: Is it a cohesive unit or a disjointed collection of individuals? Is it on mission for God or unsure of its mission? Is it flowing or fumbling? Disciplined or destructive? Purposeful or pointless (7)? From the second chapter onward, the writers seek to allow the book to serve as a guide to nurture an unhealthy family as they move towards an improved level of spiritual health. The writers begin by proposing a family mission statement, stating that, â€Å"A family mission statement will serve as a centerline and guardrails for your family on the road through life† (25). The writers lead us on an extensive exposition on the importance of a familial mission statement and how to initiate one and incorporate one into our families. In chapter two, they present seven realities, which are geared towards accepting and incorporating the fact that God is and can be an ever-present reality within your family. The writers then discuss the importance of teaching and sharing the Gospel with children. They present the fact that 90 percent of all Christians have accepted Jesus before the age of 25, and therefore, place a premium on passing the baton onto the next generation as early as we can (51). The remainder of the book becomes a summary of other evangelical programs and ideas, shared in an effort to encourage the entire family to become an evangelizing force together. They include the models of concentric circles (75) and other familial evangelistic ideas, which are geared towards the family being unified and presenting that unification before others as a witness to their unity in Christ. In the final chapter of the book, the writers detail the importance of Biblical based evangelism for all of those persons involved in the family unit. The writers advocate what they call the FIRM approach to evangelism, which involves: F – ask about family, I – ask about their interests-listen, R – ask about religion-listen, and M – share the message (114-115). Lastly, the writers provide some practical methods for sharing the Gospel, which include some scripture memorization and tips on a salvation-testimony presentation. Evaluation The book seeks to establish a rationale for the disunity of the modern family and then to provide mechanisms to promote unity within the family through the Word, then to evangelize through the family as a united front in Christ. The book is short, efficient and to the point. It allows for easy reading and presents an effective rationale for families being unified first in Christ (with each other), and then presenting that unification as an active, vibrant testimony to others. The writers identify early on that this is a book for families in crisis, and the greatest contributing factor to that difficulty involves time and busyness within the members of the family itself. Due to the simplistic presentation of the material, the writers allow for a potential impact for a wide variety of persons and family units (beyond the traditional ones). The writer’s presentation of unhealthy families and the facts provided which detail children who have fallen away from the church cannot be understated in its level of importance, and serves to provide the reader with a foundation for the rest of the work. The flow of the work involves a clever method employed by the writers that mixes conversational and anecdotal stories with necessary information, which is important to hold the interest of the target audiences. The writers may have perhaps offered a more compelling argument, had they given their target audience a little more background information concerning the statistics they compiled, rather than just highlighting that information in endnotes. The chapter on mission statements feels rushed, and gives the impression that research for the work appears to be somewhat lacking. Case in point: there is no citation offered concerning the comparison of Jonathan Edwards and the Jukes families. This cannot help but offer the audience the false notion that the writers composed the necessary research to develop the notion they are putting forth (24-25). The writers provide another example without properly citing and giving credit to the source on page 26, in the example of the bucket of sand and the big rock and the little rock. This is an illustration which has been used by many in the past, and the writers are not the original source of it. They state, â€Å"Perhaps you have seen the illustration of the big rocks and little rocks† (26). Again, this may be nitpicking; however, I believe that they need to demonstrate responsibility, since the book is a Christian work. The book contains relevant study questions and provides a plethora of workbook-like material. That being said, the work is ideal for small group studies in the church and provides a foundational approach for working with families. Beyond being simple enough for the new convert to understand, the book is filled with practical and insightful applications for all believers to use in their endeavors to spread the Word within their families and to others. The writers have fulfilled their purpose in the book. It is obvious to see, with the statistics presented and the commentary offered, that families are in trouble and the church needs to respond to their needs. The church is comprised (mostly) of families. The enemy is aware that if he destroys the family unit (as presented in scripture), then he goes a long way to placing a major injury on the church. Pipes and Lee are to be commended for their efforts. They wrote Family to Family: Leaving a Lasting Legacy, as a reply to the susceptibility of even supposedly Christian families to the status quo. This status quo, as presented by the writers, involves an adherence to one of the varying levels of dysfunction that many families experience. The outline for families in the scriptures is one man, one woman, and if they are blessed, then children. This work provides an excellent evangelistic modality within which to engage all types of families (single parent, no children, etc). This is due to the fact that, regardless of the construction of the particular family, salvation is needed within and should be displayed cohesively to the world. That being said, one can see that, once a family mission statement is adopted, the potential for manipulation within a family is obvious. Potential problems could arise should one of the parents attempt to use the mission statement to manipulate their children to act and perform in the manner that they desire. Should conflict and divorce arise in the family (which is a startling reality for the church as well as the world), then these paradigms constructed originally to help could instead be used to further divide the entire family. With any risk of developing methodology and then instructing others to incorporate this methodology into their lives, without being able to control all extraneous variables (which only God can), there is the potential danger for some using the writer’s material for abusive purposes. Yet in taking this risk, the writers succeed. This is largely due to the fact that they speak the truth of the scriptures in love, and are to be applauded for developing and exhorting others to incorporate these methods into their lives to improve their families and evangelize the lost. There is something pure and right about someone trying to assist others whom are in desperate struggles in this life. The writers have presented a unique and challenging way for the church to implement and instruct families which are in desperate need of such tutoring. A most wonderful encapsulating quote is found on page 114, which states, â€Å"The bottom line is sharing the way of salvation through Jesus Christ. This is what this book is all about: raising your family to follow Christ. Following Christ means sharing the gospel with those who do not know Him. Jesus said, ‘Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men’ (Matt.4:19). If you are not fishing, you are not following. You and your family are on mission to be fishers of men† (114). This is a rousing call to families and the Body of believers. Those who endeavor to heed the call must realize the writer’s purposes in desiring to show them a way to raise their families to serve and follow Jesus. BIBLIOGRAPHY Pipes, Jerry and Victor Lee. Family to Family, Families Making a Difference. Lawrenceville, GA: Jerry Pipes Productions, 1999.