Essay --

Danielle: First, efficient market theory implies that the market fully reflects the available information and react quickly to any new information. In fact, good or bad news related to reported net income is usually evaluated rationally by investors and directly reflected the market share price. Indeed, under an efficient market, this reflected market price will meet the price predicted by the investors and that why in some cases we notice no reactions to the earning performance whether it is good or bad. Second, sometimes there no considerable or even a reversed reaction to change in the stock price for the news related to reported net income and that is due to an other event rather internal or external taking place in the same period that affects the market behaviour towards the investors behaviour. To illustrate, if a company working in gas and petroleum industry can have a decrease in its stock price because of a new environmental low (future expenses) even with the release of a higher net income. Finally, there is also the fact that the investors have certain expectation toward the upcoming net income but in case that the reported net income doesn't overcome their expectations , even though the income is positive, investor won't react to these news . In fact, a company that posts a very impressive earnings performance, but its stock price barely moves because the investors had already expected these results and the reported net income just confirm these expectations. Robert: The inefficient market hypothesis consists on a market behaviour that sometimes drive asset prices above or below their true value. In fact, the existence and magnitude of certain stock price variations are sometimes incompatible with an eff... ...te earnings and in this situation, investors can have an idea about the level of accrual persistence so they can take the best decision towards that. Applying the Accounting principles framework would be an efficient way to increase the persistence of accruals.To illustrate, the timely recognition and mesurebility of accruals would decreae the anomalies especially if they are implemented and disclosed to the public using the right method. The non cash assets and the non cash liability such as goodwill and future tax obligation are more easily to manipulate than the cash flow. In fact, in order to increase the accruals persistence, these non cash flows items show follow a certain regulation. Indeed, Accounting provisions for impairment related to any decrease in value of these items or any possible loss but also posing a restrictive rule for any possible gain.

Chinese Education Essay -- China Educating School History Essays

Chinese Education   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The Education system in China although different than America’s has many good qualities. The view of Education in China has changed dramatically over the last forty years; it has gone from there being no real system to one that is held up to be one of the best in the world. In this paper I will go through the history of Chinese education and show how much it truly has changed. I will also look at how it is now and what China can expect for its future.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In 1949 The People’s Republic of China was formed by the Communist party. This happened after much struggle between the communists and the nationalists. The leader of the communist party and the new People’s Republic was Mao Zedong. When the communists took over China they implemented many new ideas that were supposed to bring China up to speed in regards to the industrial development. He started the five year plan in which the people and government of China was to focus on the development of industry and to challenge the old ways of thinking. The old ways were called â€Å"the four olds† these were habits, ideas, customs, and cultures. After three years Mao asked for feedback of all of the changes that had been occurring, this was called â€Å"The Hundred Flowers Campaign†. The people didn’t all like what had been happening; especially the educated and they gave bad feedback to Mao. He decided to purge the society of these †Å"poisonous weeds† as he called the educated because they challenged his authority. At this time all education was focused on redness which is the communist ideology. This is when the battle of the government verses the educated began and continued for many years. For many years the different plans that Mao thought of were not as successful as he had hoped. In 1959 Mao Zedong stepped down as the nation’s leader but remained as the communist’s party leader. He did this in order to take responsibility for the failures of the Great Leap Forward, and the other problems that had been caused under his leadership. Then in 1965 Mao took control of the government once again and this is when he established the Proletariat Cultural Revolution. Mao believed that the educated people were to blame for the many problems of China, he thought they hindered Marxism. So from 1966 to 1976 the entire education system was closed down in order to fix the problems caused and to focus m... ...tem different than the American Education system are mostly small things but there are some larger differences as well. Some of the small differences are that in China the students attend school six days a week, and that they have vacations in July and August. Some of the larger differences are that standardized tests are considered more important than grades when being considered for colleges, and that children are not supposed to ask questions in class they are only supposed to listen to lectures. In America questions are considered to be one of the major keys to understanding what you are learning. Questions are encouraged to broaden the thoughts of not only the students but also possibly the teachers as well. There are reasons that the Chinese education system is the way that it is and that is their choice to keep it that way. The government has major control over what is taught in schools and this effects what happens in them and what is learned. In America a school’s curriculum are made up by the local government and so it can vary from state to state. This is not to say that American education is right and China’s education is wrong I am just pointing out the differences.

Police Shooting/Diallo Case :: essays research papers

In our society today, it is very sad that the African-American community has lost a great trust and respect for the Mayor, the police commissioner and the N.Y.P.D. Amadou Diallo's shooting was very upsetting for the African-American community. The shooting shock many people because an unarmed innocent black male was shot 41 times in front of his home by four officers that assume him to be a rapist. Amadou Diallo was a black man in a primarily black neighborhood who saw four guys in the middle of the night and perhaps he thought these four undercover police were somehow looking for trouble. He probably said," I don't want to be a part of this", and tried to leave the scene. If I were in the same particular situation as Amadou Diallo, I would be just as afraid and try to get out of the scene. No one actually knows what Diallo was thinking about, you can only imagine. People often say that if Amadou Diallo had listen to the cops he wouldn't have been killed. I also hear people say the he cause his own death because of his lack of submission. Personally, I know Amadou Diallo stood innocent before those cops. Diallo was in a situation that he had no clue about. There was an outrage when the verdict "Not Guilty" broke out. Many people were furious, astonished and stunned. When I heard that the case was not guilty I was so shocked because I felt that the evidence was perfectly clear that the four New York police officers was GUILTY. It was not fair to my community or me to see such a case misjudge like that. African-American communities has changed their hearts toward Police Dautruche Officers. Police Officers are the ones who we are suppose to trust and entrust with our lives. Obviously, in our world today, that is not the case. I have never had a dispute with an officer, though I have seen my friends go through events with police officers. For instance, I was in an elevator with my friend and when we got to the last floor, a police officer was right in front of the elevator. So when my (guy) friend and me came out, the P.O. Pointed his gun toward my friend's chest and ask him some questions. The P. O did not approach me or even acknowledge me.

Should Vietnam Concentrate on Tourism for its Economic Development?

Vietnam is in the republic of South East Asia, bordered by China on the north, by the South China Sea on the east and south, and by Cambodia and Laos on the west. Officially the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, its area is 331,690 sq km (128,066 sq mi). Hanoi is the capital of Vietnam and Ho Chi Minh City is the country's largest city. Ho Chi Minh is at the coordinates 106 degrees south, 10 degrees west on a map. There many ways in which the tourist industry would benefit Vietnam as a whole. Tourism, of course, makes a huge amount of money; it could be hundreds of millions every year. For example places like Barcelona have become huge, great cities full of people thanks to the money made from tourism. Also read this  Cheating in a Bottom Line Economy Tourism also creates lots of new jobs for the people living in the country and some people who will come to work in Vietnam from other countries. The new jobs will trickle right down to the farmers who grow the food for the people who sell food to the hotels. This means it will be very good for agriculture, giving farmers more money to buy more land and grow more crops. People who have jobs in other industries making products for MEDCs like workers in Pepsi factories, could easily switch to having an easier but better paid life in the tourist industry. Concentrating on tourism alone might still work for Vietnam. If the locals take part in planning and decision making, the tourists are responsible in Vietnam and the government sets policies and plans ahead for it then it could work quite well. But even if it does work then there will be some downsides. Tourists generally makes quite a lot of mess wherever they go, they can destroy some of the beautiful beaches and rainforests. The rainforests themselves will have to be cut through for new highways, towns and airports. With the new highways would, hundreds upon thousands of cars and trucks, which would eventually pollute the country, turning tourist away from it. The effect on the countries fishing industries could be catastrophic. The South China Sea could be way over-fished, so hotels and resorts would have to import fish, driving prices up and making the appeal of fresh fish vanish. The effect on individual families could be bad too; the father could have to move away to a bigger city, potentially leaving the family behind, splitting the family up. This could happen to thousands of families. If the tourist industry failed then the country would have nothing to fall back on, it would use up all its money and end up back at the start. Unfortunately, most of the money tourists spend in foreign countries is immediately used to import more food, equipment and resources for the hotels and nightclubs. This leaves little money left over for the local people and economy. In conclusion I think that Vietnam should seriously consider Tourism as a big part of their economy but I don't think that they should ignore everything else. If given the time, Vietnam could become just as unwieldy as Japan in the computer services/games industry or as big as America or Germany in the automotive industry. I think the best effect of tourism in Vietnam would be the huge amount of jobs it creates and could make thousands of informal jobs vanish for formal tourism jobs. The worst thing about tourism in Vietnam would be the huge amount of damage that would be inflicted on such a beautiful landscape thanks to all the cars, litter and sewage caused by the tourists. In other words tourism could be great for the country but disastrous as well. But I still think concentrating on tourism would be a bad idea for Vietnam's economy.

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002

On March 27, 2002, the prohibition on the use of a specific form of organizational finances as contribution to political candidates and parties or to sponsor certain ads in the period prior to elections became law. This is known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), founded on the campaign finance reform bills authored by Republican Senator John McCain and Democrat Senator Russ Feingold (Magarian, 2003). The BCRA or McCain-Feingold law aimed at a more stringent regulation of the sources of funds used for electoral campaigns. It made illegal the use of soft money from corporate or private entities and labor unions for candidates and their machineries at the federal, state and local levels (Magarian, 2003). Prior to this law, organizations could donate an unlimited and unregulated amount of money for issue-based advocacy, increasing voter-turnout and party-building efforts coursed through the national political parties (Geiger, 2005). Issue ads were allowed as long as they did not use words such as â€Å"vote for† or â€Å"do not vote for† and other words that expressly promoting or assailing certain candidates. As such, issue advocacy has in essence been lawfully used to campaign for a candidate as long as the magic words mentioned are absent in the content (BrennanCenter.org, 2008). The BCRA reformed the use of soft money for broadcast issue-advocacy ads campaigns when it came up with as a qualifier for what is lawful issue-advocacy is known as electioneering communication. According to the BrennanCenter.org (2008), this means ads that â€Å"refer to a clearly identified candidate, and targets the candidate’s electorate†. The BCRA requires from entities that conduct electioneering communications a disclosure of the sources of their funds and such ads can not be aired 30 days prior to a general elections and 60 days prior to a federal election (Independent.org, 2008). The law also bans corporations and unions to donate for issue ads from their treasury fund, openly or expressly advocate for a candidate known as independent expenditures or to make direct campaign contributions (BrennanCenter.org, 2008). They are only allowed to do so through specially Political Action Committees (PACs) within these organizations which are allocated a segregated funding that can be used for independent expenditures and issue ads (BrennanCenter.org, 2008). Further, the BCRA demands the full disclosure of the sources of solicited campaign funds that amount to more than $10,000 annually or the identities of organizations and individuals that shelled an excess of $1,000 (Cantor and Whitaker, 2004). It also increased the lawful limits on the total amount of â€Å"hard money† that candidates and parties can turn out. The result was that corporations and other organizations as well as individuals drastically limited their donations to avoid the disclosure of their identities. Corporate and other private organizations can and do work to influence the outcome of the electoral process through soft money spending in order to gain access to the candidate in the event that s/he wins (Geiger, 2005). Candidates also welcome contributions as these determine in part the number of votes they will get. With the BCRA restrictions, political parties resorted to the formation of political organizations. Because they are independent, political organizations which may be corporate philanthropy, social welfare or charity organizations are beyond the scope of the current campaign law and can absorb undocumented amounts of money for issue ads. In the last elections, 527 political organizations generated more than $400 million in such funds where the biggest donors handed amounts within the $3.9 million to $30 million range (Geiger, 2005). These affluent and motive-driven corporate and individual donors were also safe from the disclosure requirement. However, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a narrow decision last year, allowed leniency on issue ads even within the 30-day or 60-day election period when it declared that ads may be exempted from the limitations set by the BCRA if they are determined as principally an exercise of the freedom of speech under the First Amendment rather than campaigning for or against a candidate (Independentsector.org, 2008). The case in question involved the Wisconsin Right to Life Inc. anti-abortion group whose ad was prohibited from airing in 2004 as it fell within the mandated election period and because it mentioned the name of a state senator to act on a certain issue. The senator was running for reelection at that time but no mention was made of this in the ad. The Supreme Court emphasized public rights rather than censorship in their decision on the case (Independent.org, 2008). Thus, corporate and labor organizations can take advantage on another gap to provide financial support for political campaigns of parties and candidates they favor even during election periods through issue ads similar to that used by the Wisconsin Right to Life. The Federal Election Committee issued a ruling exempting organizations from the electioneering communications restrictions as a result of the Supreme Court Decision (BrennanCenter.org, 2008). However, the disclosure requisites provided for in the BCRA still applies in this case but independent-sector groups are active in supporting proposals that do away with this requirement (Independentsector.org). List of References BrennanCenter.org (2008). The Impact of FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. on State Regulation of â€Å"Electioneering Communications† in Candidate Elections, Including Campaigns for the Bench. Retrieved 2 April 2008 from http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:cSpDB4j7N64J:www.brennancenter.org/page/-/Democracy/Impact%2520of%2520WRTL%2520II%2520on%2520State%2520Regulation.doc+effect+of+the+BCRA+on+corporate+public+policy&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1   Cantor, J.E. and Whitaker, L.P. (2004). Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002: Summary   Ã‚   and Comparison with Previous Law. Retrieved 2 April 2008 Geiger, J.P. Preparing for 2006: A Constitutional Amendment for Closing the 527 Soft Money Loophole. William and Mary Law Review, 47. Retrieved 2 April 2008 from    http://www.questia.com. Independentsector.org (2008). Public Policy: FEC Rule Allows Issue Ads with Disclosure.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Retrieved 2 April 2008 . Magarian, G. (2003). Regulating Political Parties under a â€Å"Public Rights† First Amendment.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   William and Mary Law Review, 44. Retrieved 2 April 2008 from   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   http://www.questia.com.         

Superstition Speech

Superstitions To inform my audience about commonly practiced superstitions, their meaning, origins, and what affects they have on our lives and commonly practiced traditions. Hi! My name is Sarah & today I am going to talk to you about superstitions. According to blah blah superstition is defined as blah blah blah. How many of you have ever crossed your fingers for good luck, or got a little nervous about something bad happening on Friday the 13th? I would bet that all of you have said or have heard someone say â€Å"God Bless You† after a sneeze.Have any of you ever wondered where the traditions of Halloween came from? Or maybe why it is thought to be bad luck for the groom to see the bride before the wedding ceremony? Today I am going to enlighten you with the answer to these questions and much more. I. For the most part superstitions can be placed into 2 categories, good or bad luck, many of them also have deeply religious meaning and use symbolism. A. Good Luck 1. You must knock on wood 3 times after mentioning good fortune or the evil spirits will ruin things for you. )The tradition traces back to an ancient pagan belief that spirits resided in trees and that by knocking on the wood, you were paying a small tribute to them by acknowledging them, and could call on them for protection against ill-fortune. Also, you were thanking them for their continued blessings and good luck. 2. Crossing two fingers (the middle and pointing fingers) on one hand as a sign of hopefulness or desire for a particular outcome. a)This is probably the superstition that is most widely used today. By making the sign of the Christian faith with our fingers, evil spirits would be prevented from destroying our chances of good fortune.It is also used as an expression: â€Å"Cross your fingers† is often told to someone hoping for good luck or a particular outcome. Sometimes, when someone tells a lie, they will cross their fingers (usually behind their back). This somehow ab solves them from the consequences or makes the lie not count. See a penny pick it up, all day long you will have good luck. b)Finding a penny and picking it up is believed to bring a day of good luck. Finding a penny with heads up is considered luckier. It is believed that this penny should not be spent; keeping it safe can bring you fortune.Any metal was considered God's gift to mankind 3. Saying â€Å"God Bless You† when someone sneezes. (1)†The blessing of those who sneeze started when the great plague took hold of Europe. Sufferers began sneezing violently, and as such, were bound to die. The Pope passed a law requiring people to bless the sneezer. At the same time, it was expected that anybody sneezing would cover their mouth with a cloth or their hand. This was obviously to stop the spreading of the disease, but many believed that it was to keep the soul intact.Sneezing ‘into the air' would allow the soul to escape and death would be imminent. Humankind has long been equating the soul with breath. It was thought that when one sneezed, the soul briefly flew out of the body, and this might allow an evil spirit to take up residence within. On the other hand, it is also said that blessing someone who sneezes is necessary because their heart skips a beat when they sneeze; it is wishing them continued good health B. Bad Luck 1. Breaking a mirror will bring seven years of bad luck. a)Romans tagged the broken mirror a sign of bad luck.The length of the prescribed misfortune, 7 years, came from the Roman belief that man's body was physically rejuvenated every 7 years, and he became, in effect, a new man. One's reflection in a mirror is thought to be the representation of his or her soul or spiritual state. Breaking the mirror, and therefore the person's reflection, would bring damage to their soul and spiritual hardship. Taking the pieces outside and burying them in the moonlight could avoid this. 2. Open an umbrella indoors and bad luck will à ¢â‚¬Å"rain† on you. a)Origin can be traced back to when umbrellas were used as sun protection.Opening one indoors supposedly was offensive to the sun (or sun god) and would bring his wrath down upon the offender 3. Walking under a ladder will bring bad luck. a)Excluding the obvious – that something might fall on you from above – the belief that walking under a ladder will bring bad luck seems to stem from the ladder forming a triangle with the wall and the ground. This represents the â€Å"Holy Trinity†, and if you violate this by entering the space, it puts you in league with the devil, and you're likely to incur God's wrath. 4. Friday the 13thThe belief that thirteen brings bad luck is an extremely pervasive belief throughout many societies, and is strong enough that many major hotels and high rises traditionally either build only twelve floors, or, if they want to go higher, skip labeling the 13th floor entirely! Many people refuse to stay on the 13th f loor, or in room 13. People stay home from work, for fear of something bad happening. Most airports don't have a thirteenth gate. There are many theories as to why this belief is held. One is that Judas, known as â€Å"the Betrayer of Jesus†, was the 13th member present at the Last Supper.Paraskevidekatriaphobia is the official term for the fear of Friday the Thirteenth. Jesus was said to have been crucified on Friday and the number of guests at the party of the Last Supper was 13, with the 13th guest being Judas, the traitor. II. Superstition plays a role in several of our nationally celebrated Holidays and traditions. A. Halloween blah blah blah 1. Costumes- The people of Ireland at that time were pagans and spirits were a part of their religion. Their beliefs involved good and evil spirits and would strive to live in harmony with both.This is where the custom of dressing up in costumes came in. On All Hallows Eve the spirits of the dead, good and evil, were believed to wal k the streets until sunrise so anyone out might run into an evil spirit and become possessed. To keep from becoming possessed, the villagers would dress in animal skins and paint their faces to scare away the bad spirits. 2. Trick or treat- it began in Ireland as part of their end-of-summer festival. October 31st is the last day of the Celtic calendar and November 1st begins the new year.On this last day of the year it what a widely-held belief that on this one night the spirits of the dead could visit the living. Family members would leave a plate of food and a place set at the table to welcome their spiritual guests. People would also leave gifts of food out to keep from angering the evil spirits and causing them to do mischief. It was a preventative measure. The saying â€Å"trick or treat† was a question, because if you left no treat you may wake up the next morning to find you had been victim of a trick or some form of mischief B. Thanksgiving blah blah During Thanksgivi ng, it is traditional to roast a turkey.When it is served, it's also traditional for two people to take the wishbone (the bird's clavicle) each making a wish, they pull apart the bone to break it. The person ending up with the larger piece will supposedly get his or her wish. Although Thanksgiving is an American holiday, the wishbone custom was brought over to the new world by the Pilgrims from England, where it had long been in practice. The ritual of breaking apart the wishbone can be traced back to the ancient Romans, Etymologists claim that the expression ‘get a lucky break' initially applied to the person winning the larger half in a wishbone tug-of-war. III. There are many wedding traditions that may seem a little silly and far fetched, and even though most of us don’t know their origin or meaning, we still include them in our wedding day rituals. A. It’s bad luck for the groom to see the bride in her wedding dress before the ceremony. 1. During the time wh en arranged marriages were custom, the couple wasn’t allowed to see each other before the wedding at all. The wedding symbolized a business deal between two families and a father would have been pleased for his daughter to marry a man from a rich family.But he also feared that if the groom met the bride before the wedding and thought she wasn’t attractive, he’d call off the wedding, casting shame onto the bride and her family. Therefore, it became tradition that the bride and groom were only allowed to meet at the wedding ceremony so that the groom did not have the opportunity to change his mind. And that veil the bride wears? Its original purpose was also to keep the groom from finding out what the bride looked like until the last possible minute, when it was too late to back out of the transactionB. Ringer Finger 1. C. The person who catches the bride’s bouquet or garter when she tosses it over her head will be the next to get married. 1. The story behi nd this tradition is downright dirty. In medieval times, it was considered lucky to get a fragment of the bride’s clothing, so hordes of guests would follow the newlywed couple into their wedding chamber after the ceremony and stand around the bed, trying to rip pieces of the bride’s gown right off her body.Because dresses were often torn apart, brides searched for alternatives to preserve their gowns and began throwing their bouquets to distract guests while they made their getaway. When the bride and groom made it safely into their wedding chamber, the groom would then crack open the door and toss the bride’s garter to the throngs of people waiting outside as a way of saying that he was about to â€Å"seal the deal. † D.The groom must carry his new wife across the threshold of their new home to prevent bad luck. 1. In ancient cultures, the threshold of the home was considered to be a hotbed of lurking, unattached evil spirits, and since a new bride was particularly vulnerable to spirit intrusion, especially through the soles of her feet, the groom ensured that his wife would not bring any bad spirits into the house by carrying her inside. Conclusion

Discuss the View That Roles of Men and Women in the Family are Becoming More Equal

The aim of this essay is to attempt to come to a conclusion as to whether the gender roles within the modern-day family are equal, whether they are becoming more equal, and whether they shall ever be equal. In doing this, we shall have to study the views and opinions of many schools of thought, the results of different studies, and recognise and fully appreciate the arguments of different people and groups. The title question itself raises many debateable points, as it makes assumptions that ignore the diversity of the family. Firstly, and most obviously, the question assumes we shall only deal with heterosexually based families, not same-sex relationships. While same-sex families most definitely exist, they are a minority and do not really come into the issue of gender, therefore I shall ignore them for the course of this essay. Secondly, no two families are exactly the same. Families in different countries will no doubt have different attitudes on the subject of equality, and there will be noticeable differences across race, class and culture divisions, as well as between two different families with (superficially at least) a lot in common. This type of diversity would require its own set of studies and essays, and so for the sake of this essay I shall limit my studies to families from this country, and to statistical evidence; rather than individual families. There are many different views concerning the equality between men and women in the family. The traditional nuclear family as we consider it today would be a married man and woman with children, with the man going out to paid employment and the woman staying at home to do housework and look after the childrenWillmott and Young's views are similar to those of Postmodernists, a sociological school of thought that developed in the 1980s. Postmodernists believe that we live in a postmodern world, where differences in gender, race, class etc are now obsolete. As a result, they see gender roles in the family to be equal and egalitarian, and claim that any inequality or dissimilarity between gender roles in individual families is due to the choice of the members within the family. Many people have attacked Willmott and Young's study, claiming insignificant evidence and inaccurate methodology to back up their conclusions. Edgell's Middle Class Couples (1980) claims that while the division of housework is more equal than in the past, the vast majority of families are far from being egalitarian. Edgell also puts emphasis on the fact that the division power within the family also still seems unequal, with men making the majority of decisions for the family. Many feminists also claimed that the statistics show that men still do a disproportionately small amount of work at home. While some more liberal feminists believe we are on a steady path to gender equality within the family, many more hard-line and radical feminists argue that gender roles are far from equal. Ann Oakley's The Sociology of Housework (1974) and Housewife (1976) argue that modern women work a ‘double-shift', juggling full-time employment and housework. Oakley claims that â€Å"One occupation in particular, that of housewife, is exclusively feminine. In Britain, 76% of all employed women are housewives and so are 93% of non-employed women†¦Ã¢â‚¬  – Housewife (1976). She argues that while feminism has forced change in waged employment, social attitudes in the home remain the same. According to Oakley, men do very little in the home, with dishwashing being the only housework men do more than women. She also argues that men see doing housework as a favour to their wives, rather than a duty; and that childcare for most men is merely a spasmodic activity of recreation. Many other sociologists attack Oakley's views, accusing her of hypocrisy as she attacked Willmott and Young's methodology, while her own studies into housework completely ignore the more traditional male jobs, such as DIY, operating machinery, gardening, simple household repairs and so on. A. Warde's Domestic Divisions of Labour (1990) offers a more well rounded view: * Male Partner Female Partner Shared Plastering 32 4 2 Tidying Up 2 67 23 Cooking 4 77 17 Checking Car Oil 79 9 2 Bathing Children 22 44 33 It may also be important that the female-dominated jobs (Tidying up, Cooking, Bathing children) are much more often ‘shared' than the male-dominated ones (Checking Car Oil, Plastering) Burghes (1997) argues against Oakley's dismissal of male childcare, stating that more fathers are taking an active role in the emotional development and support of their children. Marxists argue that the traditional nuclear family was merely a way for the capitalist class to control and exploit the proletariat through ideology. Therefore, Marxist-Feminists believe in a ‘patriarchal ideology', in which girls are socialised into a male-led world to accept their role as housewives, and make marriage and family their main goal. In turn, this will benefit the capitalist society by keeping the status quo, and creating a new generation of similarly socialised male workers and female housewives. Marxist-Feminists believe this patriarchy occurs at all levels of society, from making girls wear skirts to advertising dolls on television, and that to truly achieve gender equality we must dispense with socialising our children into gender roles. People often dismiss this view, claiming that gaining equality should not mean compromising identity, and many other feminists believe that retaining their femininity is as important a part of the struggle for equality as gaining equal rights. The New Right believe that the nuclear family is the ideal family structure, and that Britain went through a ‘Golden Age' during the 1950s. Since then, they claim that feminism and equal rights have caused women to demand jobs, and thus be absent from home. As a result, the New Right argue that this puts stress on the nuclear family, often tearing it apart, and that absent parents cause deviance and social problems amongst their children. They claim that this has caused a decline in the family, and an increase in what they consider social problems (egg divorce, single-parent families). They believe that the current equal rights movement is wrong, and that people should return to the traditional nuclear family, which gives everyone an equal but separate, individual role. These views are similar to those of functionalists. Functionalists also believe that the nuclear family is the perfect and desired family type, as each member is supported within the family unit, and each person agrees on their role within the family to keep it working. Robin Fox (1969) argued that roles in the family were based on biological rules, while Talcott Parsons (1955) took a similar view, claiming that naturally women are best at ‘expressive' roles, such as caring, empathising and socialising, while men are best at ‘instrumental' roles, such as working for money. Therefore, functionalists believe that biological factors determine gender roles within the family, and the traditional roles within the nuclear family are the perfect representation of these roles. What is more, functionalist claim there is a consensus within the family, whereby all members of the family agree to these roles. These functionalist and new right views are viciously attacked by Marxists, feminists and postmodernists, all of whom agree that gender roles are culturally, not biologically, determined. Marxist-feminists claim that the consensus is an illusion, as women only accept their roles in the traditional family as they have been socialised to do so by patriarchal ideologies. All feminists also disagree with the New Right idea of the ‘perfect' nuclear family and the ‘Golden Age', claiming that all these things did were control and manipulate women, and that roles within such families were never equal. As this essay has shown us, views on gender roles in the family are fiercely contested, and opinions differ drastically. Functionalists and the New Right insist that gender roles in the family are biologically intended to be different, and were most equal in the traditional, nuclear family. Postmodernists and followers of Willmott and Young claim we have moved into an era of egalitarianism, where gender roles are shared and equal. Feminists argue that while there has been a small amount of progress, gender roles are far from equal, and females still have a much worse ‘deal' than males. I have attempted to fully understand all these points of view, and come to a fair conclusion. In truth, it seems to me that the real nature of gender roles within the family is somewhere between all these points of view. I believe that as we currently stand, gender roles are equal, but not egalitarian. More males share more of the housework and childcare than ever, while more females are pursuing careers and learning what were traditionally ‘male' skills (eg DIY, repair, vehicle maintenance etc). People tend to still do jobs that were traditionally considered ‘right' for their sex, and there are most definitely still differences between the genders, but these boundaries are being pushed every day, and more and more families are sharing more jobs and decisions. I think we must remember that social attitudes take more time to change than social actions, and we must recognise that change is occurring. Since the 1970s, when Ann Oakley wrote her books on housework, we have seen the rise of the ‘new man' and ‘house-husbands'. Meanwhile, more and more women are proving Fox's and Parsons' theories of biologically determined roles to be wrong. Not all families will follow the statistics; there will always be a few male-dominated households, just as there are now ‘role-reversal' families. And families will always differ slightly from each other. But within a few generations, I believe that Willmott and Young's vision of an egalitarian family will become our view of the majority of families, as we're halfway there already.