Essay Sample on Sport and Gender

Should girls be allowed to play on boys sports teams? In my opinion girls should be allowed to play on boys sports’ teams for a myriad of reasons. I will outline three major points why I think it would be advantageous for girls to play on boys’ sports teams. The first reason is to learn team collaboration with the opposite sex. In sports, children learn how to depend on one another and how to use their personal strengths to accomplish the goal of the team. With teams being comprised of girls and boys, our children can learn early the importance to build these skills. They can begin to learn how the other thinks, while opening their minds to different opinions about a collective problem. My second point is to learn the priority of respecting others. It is crucial that we are teaching our children how to respect themselves and those around them. In sports, the strengths and weaknesses of each teammate affect the whole team. For the common goal to be attained, consideration and appreciation must be in place for everyone to make a real contribution. By allowing both girls and boys to be on the same team, this crucial understanding of camaraderie will be established since childhood. My final reason is learning to take care for one another before â€Å"dating† age. Relationship aspects are not taught in school. However, with boys and girls working together on the same team, one can learn how to view another as a partner. Co-ed sports’ teams can set the stage for children to understand some of the extreme differences between boys and girls. The perfect goal would be to bridge the gap between the opposite sexes, and to cultivate a community of equality and collaboration. Taking the knowledge and using it to navigate their course through life will benefit them over the traditional unisex sports’ teams.

Persepolis Changing Western Perceptions of Muslim Women...

Marjane Satrapi’s graphic novel, Persepolis, makes important strides toward altering how Western audiences perceive Iranian women. Satrapi endeavors to display the intersection of the lives of some Westerners with her life as an Iranian, who spent some time in the West. Satrapi, dissatisfied with representations she saw of Iranian women in France, decided to challenge them. In her words, â€Å"From the time I came to France in 1994, I was always telling stories about life in Iran to my friends. We’d see pieces about Iran on television, but they didn’t represent my experience at all. I had to keep saying, ‘No, it’s not like that there.’ I’ve been justifying why it isn’t negative to be an Iranian for almost twenty years. How strange when it isn’t†¦show more content†¦The third space to which Miller refers, that of the working, psychic, and social space of the author, is the one in which Satrapi chooses to engage he r readers. Utilizing nego-feminism, questioning subordination and preexisting understandings of culture, and the stark depictions of a graphic novel, Satrapi makes a compelling case in humanizing Iranian women like her. In this way, Satrapi reclaims the space of her identity and how it is represented and the ethics of doing so, and alters it in order to provide a more representative picture of her life in Iran. Satrapi tells her story with images of privileged characters whose politics, financial situation, and values well match those of liberal Westerners. Further, she demonstrates her autonomy, independent of the regime, in which she also is able to demonstrate her passion for spirituality and nationalism. She begins her story from a child’s perspective in order to alter preexisting perceptions about Iranian women overall proving her strong love for her family in a way that echoes American values. Satrapi is a self-proclaimed pacifist who wishes more children could study abroad, arguing that having experienced that; you cannot hate what you know (Satrapi, â€Å"Why I Wrote Persepolis† 11). Satrapi was able to pursue a study abroad experience, but

None Provided5 Essay Thesis Example For Students

None Provided5 Essay Thesis The Causes Of The Great DepressionThe Great Depression was the worst economic slump ever in U.S. history, and one which spread to virtually all of the industrialized world. The depression began in late 1929 and lasted for about a decade. Many factors played a role in bringing about the depression; however, the main cause for the Great Depression was the combination of the greatly unequal distribution of wealth throughout the 1920s, and the extensive stock market speculation that took place during the latter part that same decade. The maldistribution of wealth in the 1920s existed on many levels. Money was distributed disparately between the rich and the middle-class, between industry and agriculture within the United States, and between the U.S. and Europe. This imbalance of wealth created an unstable economy. The excessive speculation in the late 1920s kept the stock market artificially high, but eventually lead to large market crashes. These market crashes, combined with the maldis tribution of wealth, caused the The roaring twenties was an era when our country prospered tremendously. The nations total realized income rose from $74.3 billion in 1923 to $89 billion in 1929. However, the rewards of the Coolidge Prosperity of the 1920s were not shared evenly among all Americans. According to a study done by the Brookings Institute, in 1929 the top 0.1% of Americans had a combined income equal to the bottom 42%. That same top 0.1% of Americans in 1929 controlled 34% of all savings, while 80% of Americans had no savings at all. Automotive industry mogul Henry Ford provides a striking example of the unequal distribution of wealth between the rich and the middle-class. Henry Ford reported a personal income of $14 million in the same year that the average personal income was $750. By present day standards, where the average yearly income in the U.S. is around $18,500, Mr. Ford would be earning over $345 million a year! This maldistribution of income between the rich a nd the middle class grew throughout the 1920s. While the disposable income per capita rose 9% from 1920 to 1929, those with income within the top 1% enjoyed astupendous 75% increase in per capita disposable income. A major reason for this large and growing gap between the rich and the working-class people was the increased manufacturing output throughout this period. From 1923-1929 the average output per workerincreased 32% in manufacturing. During that same period of time average wages for manufacturing jobs increased only 8%. Thus wages increased at a rate one fourth as fast as productivity increased. As production costs fell quickly, wages rose slowly, and prices remained constant, the bulk benefit of the increased productivity went into corporate profits. In fact, from 1923-1929 corporate profits rose 62% and dividends rose 65%. The federal government also contributed to the growing gap between the rich and middle-class. Calvin Coolidges administration (and the conservative-controlled government) favored business, and as a result the wealthy who invested in these businesses. An example of legislation to this purpose is the Revenue Act of 1926, signed by President Coolidge on February 26, 1926, which reduced federal income and inheritance taxes dramatically. Andrew Mellon, Coolidges Secretary of the Treasury, was the main force behind these and other tax cuts throughout the 1920s. In effect, he was able to lower federal taxes such that a man with a million-dollar annual income had his federal taxes reduced from $600,000 to $200,000. Even the Supreme Court played a role in expanding the gap between the socioeconomic classes. In the 1923 case Adkins v. Childrens Hospital, the Supreme Court ruled minimum-wage legislationThe large and growing disparity of wealth between the well-to-do and the middle-income citize ns made the U.S. economy unstable. For an economy to function properly, total demand must equal total supply. In an economy with such disparate distribution of income it is not assured that demand will always equal supply. Essentially what happened in the 1920s was that there was an oversupply of goods. It was not that the surplus products of industrialized society were not wanted, but rather that those whose needs were not satiated could not afford more, whereas the wealthy were satiated by spending only a small portion of their

Japanese Internment Essays (575 words) - , Term Papers

Japanese Internment One of the original arguments for adding a Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution was that it was needed to protect individuals and minority groups from a potential ?tyranny of the majority.? Did it work? Well, it depends on your viewpoint. Whether it was the Americans or the African-Americans, the Native Americans, or the Japanese Americans. The Bill of Rights were established to benefit the Americans, and only the Americans. They dealt with individual liberties, as well as the boundary between federal and state authority. Hoping to build a strong bond between Americans, the Bill of Rights failed. Article Fifteen states: ?The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.? For an American, there is no problem. When a minority member goes to vote, they find that they are unable; they do not have the right. Why is this? Why are African Americans unable to vote? Slavery has supposedly ended; but they are still unable to vote. The Bill of Rights was supposed to protect minorities from a potential ?tyranny of the majority.? And the answer is: No, it did not. There are many examples, but perhaps that strongest example are the Japanese Americans and the Internment Camps. Japan's surprise attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 caused the United States to enter World War I. It also stirred hostility against Japanese people in the United States. Many Americans associated Japanese Americans with the Japanese pilots who had destroyed U.S. Navy ships. The Executive Order 9066, signed by FDR in 1942, was designed to designate military areas from which ?any or all persons may be excluded.? Curfews were established for the Japanese Americans, and they were confined to detention camps until their loyalty could be determined. More than 100,000 Japanese Americans were confined in ten detention camps scattered over seven states: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Idaho, Utah, and Wyoming. As a result, their lives were completely turned upside down. These camps were a living hell. Living in cramped, smelly stalls; being without food and water for long periods of time. The Japanese Americans were forced to accept this new way of life. Many were confused and disturbed as to what was happening. How could the U.S government do this to their fellow Americans? They were trapping their own people. The people sent to these internment camps were Japanese Americans, this meant that they were born in the United States, as well as Japanese citizens. It was stated in the teleconference by Art Shibayama, that even if you were 1/6 Japanese you were sent to the camps. The U.S. viewed these American born people as dangerous and hazardous, and felt they should be incarcerated. But how could an American military send people to internment camps because they are American? The United States is supposed to be a country for all people; that is what is said in the U.S. Constitution. But why were people being incarcerated because of their nationality? After this conflict, how could one read the U.S. Constitution and think that it promotes liberty and equality? Well, it does...for American citizens, only. The United States Constitution is a violation of a person's constitutional rights and it was unsuccessful at protecting minorities from the tyranny of the majority. History Reports