Children in Malouf Essay -- essays research papers

Children take center stage in a lot of maloufs stories, but the memory of childhood is a deeper, more resonant thread throughout this collection. Pre – adolescence, particularly the ages of nine or ten, carries enormous weight in the writer’s imagination. The light from his Brisbane childhood often illuminates his narrative, and the remembered landscape often illuminates his narrative, and the remembered landscape fills in the background, but it is the child’s worldview that is the dominant concern. Malouf has talked about â€Å" the kind of fluidity of your perceptions at that time which are mostly un-judgmental†, although he acknowledges the incredible strength with which convictions are held. Most of the important questions about relationships and their foundations have begun to surface, yet the child is banished from the adult world at the same time, instilling in them a sense of mystery about the milieu of grown-ups and an awareness of the boundary t hat exists between childhood and adolescence. Maloufs younger characters exhibit many of these qualities, while the adults try to recapture the untrammeled joy of discovery they remember from their youth. â€Å"Closer† and â€Å"Blacksoil Country† are both told from the child’s point of view. Although Jordan, the ‘child’ in the latter story, is discovered to be a 150 –year-old ghost, he shares Amy’s fierce loyalty to her family, despite any objections they may have their elders’ behavior. Both children are driven to heal familial wounds: ...

Choosing A Car Essay example -- essays research papers

Choosing the Right Vehicle Choosing a car these days can be a hassle. There are so many advertisements in the automobile industry trying to get you to but their vehicle. You end up choosing a vehicle with a catchy advertising jingle or phrase. Then later come to realize you are not satisfied with your decision, because of your lack of patience and lack to do any type of research on the vehicles of interest. Many times you end up limiting yourself to only a few selections. Then make your decision based on a familiar vehicle name rather than what type of vehicle suits you best. You should never make a decision based on a familiar name. There is too much information to be concerned with, for you to choose a vehicle based on a name you are familiar with. Purchasing a vehicle is a major expense. It is something that should be carefully though about. Your vehicle is your shield to protect you from other bad drivers. You should choose a vehicle that is safe. Thanks to technology automobiles are becoming more and more safe each year, with the emergence of air bags. Safety is just one of the many aspects you should look into when choosing a vehicle. Avilez 2 Perhaps the most important aspect you should look into when choosing a vehicle is the cost. You want a vehicle that will fit your budget, as well as something that is economical. When you do research on an automobile you can get an idea of what amount the vehicle you want usually sells for, making it easier to negotiate a pric...

Nietzsche and the Prophet Essay -- Philosophy Philosophical Essays

Nietzsche and the Prophet According to Friedrich Nietzsche’s Thus Spoke Zarathustra, the meaning of human existence is to make room for the â€Å"Superman†: a superhuman who perseveres in its capacity for unlimited self-creation. (Pg. 49)[1] In order for humankind to embrace its self-creative nature and allow for the transcendence into this superhuman condition, however, we must first learn to destroy our present tables of values; it is our desperate adherence to traditional (religious) values which prevents us from actualizing our potential for self-creation. It is important to note, however, that it is not the creation of these traditional values in and of itself that Nietzsche condemns. After all, self-creation is not only a positive thing but, is the true essence and meaning of human existence. Rather, it is our insistence on treating these values and beliefs (e.g. the existence of God) as permanent and a priori which sickens him. When we perceive these values and beliefs as permanent , it numbs both the ability and motivation for human beings to self-create the future or, what he calls, the â€Å"self-creating will†. As Nietzsche’s protagonist states, â€Å"God is a supposition; but I want your supposing to reach no further than your creating will...Willing liberates: that is the true doctrine of will and freedom... (Pg.’s 110-11) Manifest in Nietzsche’s vision of human self-creation, however, is a fundamental tension between the past and the future. On the one hand, he tells the reader that because everything is past and begs destruction, it is disgusting for anyone to blindly adhere to traditional value systems. Yet, on the other hand, the future (Superman) is fundamentally connected and, perhaps, even indebted to th... ...Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1961. Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Translated by R. J. Hollingdale. Penguin Books: London. [2]. Later on in the text, we see that this entails Zarathustra rising up and becoming the teacher of the eternal recurrence: that all things, including human existence, recur eternally. As his animals tell Zarathustra, â€Å"For your animals well know, O Zarathustra, who you are and must become: behold, you are the teacher of the eternal recurrence, that is now your destiny! That you have to be the first to teach this doctrine...that all things recur eternally and we ourselves with them, and that we have already existed an infinite number of times before and all things with us†. (The Convalescent; Pg. 237; italics original) Upon hearing the prophet’s words, however, we see that Zarathustra is not ready to become the teacher of the eternal recurrence.

Modern Young Women and Their Role in a Society Essay

British young women as a subject of broad political interest became visible and significant in 1997 when New Labour came into power. It appeared as a novel phenomenon since it was all about â€Å"men’s’ world† before. The growing trend of feminism in a new liberal shape – encouraging women to get independent by means of achieving success and earning money, was well supported by press and television. Yet the image of young, ready for success women meets the picture of what is considered as a failure, i. e. less educated, young mothers and their lower quality of life. Soon, the issue of obese, diet and body image turned into a matter of public concern. Next, young women have started to be seen as valued prospective client and consumers, i. e. targets for marketing tools and strategies involving all media spaces. However along with all promises of modern society, there are still aspects that make women staying behind, despite all optimism of equal opportunities: poor background or simply decision of having children which very often closes the door of work career in desired and quick way. Read more:  Essay About Women Role in Modern Society One of very important means of giving opportunities to young women is a changing system of education, being one of the most factors guarantying the high level of life. Nevertheless one should not forget that the type of school is still important, altogether with the care and upbringing received at home. Having all these advantages available, women have free choice whether to have children or not, thus being a single mother is no longer any issue when there is enough money to deal with everyday life alone. Moreover, women are being now encouraged to earn money for living just to avoid a need to rely on husbands or partners. The significant aspect when question of female success raises, is the paradox of equality for ethnic minorities. The truth and reality is that there are hardly any chances to get the good education in poor areas usually habited by immigrants. Employers pay much attention not only to the proper education but also to the place where this education had been acquired. This system forms a vicious circle and vastly stands out from the young female success model presented by politicians and media. In respect of above issue, there has been a line put between what is considered as a â€Å"good† and â€Å"bad† type of women, at least as seen from New Labour perspective. Good girls are those who in fact were blessed with proper home circumstances respecting family values, whereas Bad Ones are those who were not that lucky or even lost their luck by incorrect life decisions. As far as these decisions are concerned it mainly means the youth pregnancy as a choice. Such decision is to guarantee state benefits and a sort of social security which a girl from poor area would not get if she was just unemployed and not educated. Being a single mother and getting state benefits is believed to be more advantageous than working part time – and such approach is not favored by modern self conscious, success- focused society. Media is one of key players in this matter also, presenting the opposite images to create the opinions and prejudices. It confronts the image of successful young women being glamorous, offering their best assets to the employers and the image of prematurely aged girls who gave birth.

Elizabeth, the Monster and Patriarchy Essay

In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, some blatant parallels are made between Dr. Frankenstein’s adopted sister, Elizabeth, and the monster he created. Both of these innocent creatures, together represent all of mankind in their similarities and differences, Elizabeth being the picture of womanhood and goodness, the monster representing manhood and evil. Both Elizabeth and the monster belong to and structure their lives in terms of Dr. Frankenstein, leading to overall destruction and, ultimately demonstrating the dangerous properties of patriarchy, which Dr. Frankenstein embodies. Dr. Frankenstein begins his narrative, most logically, in telling the story of his childhood. Dr. Victor Frankenstein’s mother was a loving, benevolent woman, moved by the plight of the impoverished and forever doing all in her power to give charity to those in need. It was thus that she came across a poor Italian family with a flock of dirty children, one of them stood out, she was blond and fair and especially angelic. Victor’s mother decided that it was her duty to raise this blond girl as her own, or, rather, as Victor’s own. This girl was Elizabeth who is, in a way, given to Victor as a gift, and thus begins his unnatural relationship with power and creation; â€Å"On the evening previous to [Elizabeth] being brought to my home, my mother had said playfully, ‘I have a pretty present for my Victor-tomorrow he shall have it.’ And when, on the morrow, she presented Elizabeth to me as her promised gift, I, with childish seriousness, interpreted her words literally and looked upon Elizabeth as mine-mine to protect, love, and cherish.† (56) On her deathbed, Victor’s mother expresses her desire for the ultimate union of Victor and Elizabeth. The fate of Elizabeth is thus utterly dependent upon Victor’s, and Victor’s relationship with his fellow humans is forever grossly twisted due to his near ownership of Elizabeth. The arrangement of their odd marriage is never questioned by either one of them, and neither are ever able to repair their relationships with other people/beings, their experiences being so inhuman. In his college years, Victor develops a desire, and acquires the necessary knowledge, to actually create life. After just a couple of extremely productive years at the University, Dr. Frankenstein discoveries an amazing thing, he states in his narration; â€Å"After days and nights of incredible labor and fatigue, I succeeded in discovering the cause of generation and life; nay, more, I became myself capable of bestowing animation upon lifeless matter.† (51) But it was not enough for Dr. Frankenstein merely to know how to give life, he had to do it himself. His goal was far from modest, he planned to create not a frog or a fruit fly, but a man. Dr. Frankenstein was excited by the power of his act, he likened himself to god, â€Å"A new species would bless me as its creator and source: many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me.† (52) Victor’s egotism and corollary want for power frame him in the classic definition of the Patriarch. He believes that whatever he creates will love and cherish his being for the mere fact of his being its creator, his word is the final word and the right word The being that Dr. Frankenstein creates is the monster of the novel, this monster is at once an independent being, and a possession. It is the beautiful being that Dr. Frankenstein longed would look up to its supreme creator with servile gratitude. Dr. Frankenstein did not fully understand how horrific was his deed, until it had been done, regarding his first glimpse at the now living creature, Frankenstein remarked, â€Å"How can I describe my emotions at this catastrophe, or how delineate the wretch whom with such infinite pains and care I had endeavored to form?† In the  monster’s first moment of consciousness, he stretched out his arm towards his creator, a sign of ultimate compassion and the gratitude for which Dr. Frankenstein had longed. Dr. Frankenstein responds by turning his back and running. Dr. Frankenstein embodies the irresponsible leader, the unfeeling man, the Patriarch with grand intentions but no means of the necessary compassion. During the time in which Dr. Frankenstein is away from home, studying in the University, he receives a multitude of letters from the longing Elizabeth, and replies to none. Elizabeth remains at home in Switzerland, fulfilling her womanly duties to the Frankenstein family, her only hope for future happiness lies in her marriage with Victor, for she is nothing without him. The power that Dr. Frankenstein holds over Elizabeth has striking similarities to the dynamic of power he described as desiring over his creations. The pattern of neglect that Frankenstein demonstrates first with Elizabeth, then with the monster does not seem to phase their unconditional, and unreasonable, love for him. Dr. Frankenstein does not think of Elizabeth as an equal, for she is a woman, and he does not think of the monster as even a man, for he created him. Within a Patriarchy, the government feels justified in its neglectful actions for it feels itself better than the women and low lifes over which it rules. Just as a population allows their government to proceed with its cruel deeds without question, so do Elizabeth and the monster initially turn a blind eye to the evil acts of Dr. Frankenstein. Elizabeth and the monster are not only similar in their actions relative to Dr. Frankenstein, but both seem to occupy quite the opposite end of the spectrum of humanity. Elizabeth is submissive and self-sacrificing. She is blond and fair-skinned and described as â€Å"angelic†. Elizabeth encompasses womanhood and goodness at once. The monster, on the other hand, ends up dedicating his life to the destruction of Dr. Frankenstein’s livelihood. The monster is ugly, the mere sight of him puts people into shock. The monster is a self described â€Å"fallen angel† and he even likens himself to Adam, the first man. Thus the monster encompasses evil and manhood at once. Elizabeth and the monster together represent all of man, the oppressed, the poor, the  ugly and the helpless victims of a system built to benefit a select few. While Dr. Frankenstein represents the ruling class, Elizabeth and the monster together represent the under-privileged ruled class. War is a classically male act. War is the tool and the game of the Patriarchy and the innocent civilians are its pawns. When Dr. Frankenstein oversteps the limits of human power, he takes control over things for which man should not be responsible, he states â€Å"Life and death appeared to me ideal bounds, which I should first break through.† In commencing a war, the Patriarch puts himself in charge of the lives and deaths of many men, an extremely unnatural act. When Dr. Frankenstein meddles with the natural limits of life and death, he is creating the chaos of war in his own life. The death and destruction which results from Dr. Frankenstein’s creation, the death of his younger brother William, Justine and Elizabeth, are merely examples of the multitude of unnecessary deaths caused by the Patriarchal wars. Just as many wars could have been prevented through simple negotiations, had it not been for the arrogance of one man with too much power, so too could have the destruction in Frankenstein have been prevented had Dr. Frankenstein merely conceded with the monster’s simple request, with which he ended his own narrative; â€Å"My companion must be of the same species and have the same defects. This being you must create.†(137). Had Dr. Frankenstein for once done something for someone other than himself, in this case, create a female companion for the monster, many lives could have been saved. Shelley was clearly making the statement that the absence of womanly compassion in government is what leads to unnecessary destruction in war. In creating a man, Dr. Frankenstein takes on, unnaturally, a woman’s role, it is thus that he can neglect Elizabeth, deeming her unnecessary. This is the biggest mistake at all. Just as Elizabeth, or any woman, was left out of the creation of this man, so has woman been neglected from the makings of governments and societal structures in Patriarchies everywhere. Elizabeth and the monster represent a balance that Dr. Frankenstein lacks, because he rejects everything feminine and human, he must bear the consequences. At the time this book was written, many technological advances were being made, discoveries in science were flourishing and scientists themselves were  gaining the highest forms of respect. Unfortunately, due to the style of government and power structures at the time, these incredible advances benefited everyone but women and the poor. Infant mortality was still very high and other health issues related to women were being utterly ignored by the scientific community, which seemed to have no place for femininity. Shelley displays this discrepancy in the novel first with the many deaths of mothers, Elizabeth’s mother, Dr. Frankenstein’s mother, Clerval’s mother and Justine’s mother all died relatively early on in the novel. While Dr. Frankenstein could create life, no one could seem to save a mother in childbirth or make food for a starving family. To emphasize the lack of female influence in science, Dr. Frankenstein completes the most womanly act there is, creation of life, without a woman. Dr. Frankenstein’s unnatural power over Elizabeth and the monster eventually lead to the destruction of them all. It is not long before the roles are reversed between the Doctor and the monster. While the monster is initially enslaved to the doctor, by the end of the novel the doctor believes himself to be the slave of the monster. It is Dr. Frankenstein’s arrogant, patriarchal ego that gets his true love killed, his power destroys his life. Dr. Frankenstein’s divergence from all that is feminine and human led to chaos for all. Because Dr. Frankenstein dedicates his life to vengeance against the monster for the murder of Elizabeth, he becomes the slave of both the monster and Elizabeth: the tables turned. In the last moments of Dr. Frankenstein’s life, he cries â€Å"Scoffing devil! Again do I vow vengeance; again do I devote thee, miserable fiend, to  torture and death. Never will I give up my search until he or I perish; and then with what ecstasy shall I join my Elizabeth and my departed friends, who even now prepare me for  the reward of my tedious toil and terrible pilgrimage.† (195) Just as conditions must sometimes reach their lowest point before the people  break into revolution, and their rulers never renounce their sins in life, so did the worst type of destruction have to occur before Dr. Frankenstein realized what his role must be. Mary Shelley lived in a time when a woman novelist was believed to be putting her name on her husband’s work, the advancement of technology ran beyond human interests and only the rich received some sort of security against sudden death and rampant disease. Shelley saw the chaos and destruction that resulted from unequal representation in a power-hungry, Patriarchal government. Elizabeth and the monster embody the missing aspects of this un-representative ruling class; compassion and humanity, it is the absence of these things that Shelley displays the horrific result of in her novel. Frankenstein is more than a ghost story, it is a social narrative and a political manifesto.

Simmel, Marx, and Mead

After reading the specified passage #8, pages 101-108, I sat back and thought about who and what we have studied this semester. The information in the passage connected with three of the five major sociological minds that we have studied: Simmel, Marx, and Mead. The beginning of the passage talks about immigrants starting a new life in a new place, and what we a Americans think about it, which reminds me of Georg Simmel. A lot of the passage talks about how class and jobs relate to one another, which made me think of Karl Marx. One part of the passage discusses what Barbie is for little girls, which reminds of George Herbert Mead. I think that it is clear that these three sociological minds influenced parts of this section of Barbie Culture. Rogers gives the Statue of Liberty as an example of an icon. She talks about what it represents for Americans. To us it represents â€Å"political freedom and mass democracy (independence), this same icon has become a harbinger of a society supposedly open to â€Å"teeming masses† of needy, if not desperate, immigrants (dependence). Rogers goes on to say that Americans â€Å"see foreign-born newcomers as threats to their society. Fearful of the alien lifeways and multiple tongues of these international migrants, such Americans commonly invoke sentiments seemingly incompatible with this cherished icon† (Rogers: 101-102). Pampel talks a lot about how Simmel felt about the way he and other Jewish people were treated when they moved to Germany and into its big cities, and how most Germans tried to keep them from gaining any power or status. One example that Pampel gives is â€Å"universities placed limits on the number of Jewish professors they would promote: although about 12 percent of lecturers came from Jewish backgrounds, only about three percent reached he position of tenured professor† (Pampel: 131). Simmel was held back at almost everywhere he taught. Nearly everyone that heard his lectures like him and what he thought about things and how he broke things up and made sense out of them. He should have been tenured way before he finally was, but because of racist views of him he was not, no matter how brilliant he was. Pampel writes a lot about Marx and what he thought about the inhumane working conditions. Pampel tells us how Marx’s view on why things were the way they were. â€Å"Mattel’s hierarchy grows wider as one descends the ladder† (Rogers: 102). Marx knew that there were a lot more proletariat (workers) than there were bourgeoisie (owners of the capital). Everyone wanted as much money as they could get. Nobody really cared how the workers that were actually making the products lived or even felt. Marx felt that the key concept to all of that is social class. Society is both enabling and constraining. It enables few people to make a lot of money and the major decisions that affect everyone and constrains most people to just do as they are told. The workers had to work with low pay and in bad working conditions just to make enough money to survive. They really had no choice. Marx’s perspective is called conflict theory, and classes are always going to be in conflict with one another. Last but not least, Rogers talks about how or why Barbie came to be. Ruth and Elliot Handler were on vacation in Switzerland with their son, Ken, and their daughter, Barbara. They were out shopping when they came across the Lilli doll, which was a German doll that came from a cartoon strip and that was mostly marketed to men as a sex symbol. â€Å"Barbara Handler was fascinated with the doll, and Ruth Handler claims to have seen it as a perspective plaything for girls past the baby-doll stage† (Rogers: 103). Ruth must have thought that girls still needed a doll to play with so that they still had a sort of learning tool, even though they had out grown baby-dolls. Mead thought that toys/dolls could be used for role-playing, which really helped in the process of becoming one’s social self. Children could adopt the roles and attitudes of the doll. They act out and assume the roles of others in their imaginations. This role-playing helps â€Å"children develop a better sense of the meanings and attitudes held by other people† (Pampel: 194). Once children learn these things they can start forming their own opinions about things and really become and individual. Simmel taught us that the world is not fair. Even though he was a brilliant man and had a lot to offer the world, he was not able to because of racism and stupid people. Marx thought that society could be a great thing, but at the same time it could hold people back and make a lot of people miserable. Mead said that dolls play an important part in becoming a functioning member of society by helping children learn to develop their own attitudes and opinions as well as respect the attitudes and opinions of others. These three men contributed a lot to form the great sociological world that we have today.

Equality for Undocumented Immigrants Essay

The women founders of sociological theory made it possible for women and members of other marginalized communities to gain access to the rights and privileges their white male counterparts enjoyed for centuries. In particular, the incredible lives of Charlotte Perkins Gilman and Ida B. Wells-Barnett allowed new avenues of academia and social change that had not previously been conceivable. Although they used different approaches and their theories focused on different aspects of the society in which they lived, a common thread ties them together in the history of feminist thinkers: their passion for social and economic change for women. Their contributions laid the groundwork for the modern day struggles for civil rights, in particular the fight for fair treatment and equality of undocumented immigrants. Gilman and Wells-Barnett did not gain admiration for maintaining the status-quo, which is exactly why it is important to apply their methods of research and analysis to the fight for the equality of undocumented immigrants. This paper focuses on the revolutionary theories Gilman and Wells-Barnett are most known for, and discusses the potential implications the application of these theories might have when applied to undocumented immigrants. Charlotte Perkins Gilman was born on July 3, 1860 and died by suicide in August of 1935. Despite her unfortunate death, the contributions Gilman made to the feminist movement are still considered to be unparalleled, so much so that has been judged â€Å"the most original and challenging mind which the woman movement produced† 1. In her most famous work, Women and Economics, Gilman separated herself from other feminists of the time by boldly stating that the integral cause for sex-distinction and the inequality facing women is the dependence on the husband in the family unit for all money making activities. Her bold and unapologetic prose highlighted the â€Å"sexuo-economic relationship† between married men and women, dating back to prehistoric times 2. According to Gilman, women must rely solely on their sexuality to attain even their most basic needs. Unlike men, who have endless opportunities to gain their desires, young women are left with only their bodies as a means for material and social well being, because â€Å"all that she may wish to have, all that she may wish to do, must come through a single channel and a single choice. Wealth, power, social distinction, fame- not only these, but home and happiness, reputation, ease and pleasure, her bread and butter-all, must come to her through a small gold ring† 3. Woman’s dependence on men economically not only hurts women financially, socially, mentally, and intellectually. This dependence of married women on their husbands for virtually all aspects of their well being also has a negative effect on the economy. Gilman blames the â€Å"androcentric culture† for societies ills, using the term specifically to refer to the institutions and social norms defined by the capitalist patriarchy men and women are taught to live in beginning at a very young age. This phenomenon, coupled with the inability for women to compete with men in society, is causing great intellectual waste as well as economic ramifications. Until women could have the same freedoms as men to pursue economic independence, they would remain subjugated and forced to live their lives without freedom and confined by social norms perpetuated by the capitalist patriarchy of male domination. Ida B. Wells-Barnett made her mark in feminist sociology not only for her work in the field of sociology but also as a social activist who challenged the status-quo of American society. She used a unique blend of research and social activism to challenge the racism she and her fellow African Americans faced every day in the United States, particularly in the South. Wells-Barnett collected information from newspapers, journals, and other media outlets to uncover the ways African Americans were represented in the media and the negative effect this had on the lives of people of color and the poor across the country. For example, in her autobiography, Wells-Barnett describes one incident which resulted in a lawsuit against the Chesapeake, Ohio and Southwestern Railroad. When she refused to leave the â€Å"ladies† car, two conductors had to physically remove her, during which she bit one conductor on the arm and refused to let go. She explains â€Å"†the white ladies and gentlemen in the car even stood on the seats so that they could get a good view and continued applauding the conductor for his brave stand.†4Together with other theorists like Julia Cooper, Wells-Barnett developed a theory of domination that explained why white men of power continued to dominate American institutions and perpetuate the cycles of racism and poverty. Specifically, Wells-Barnett focused on the violent behaviors, such as lynching, that dominant members of society used when they felt their position of authority was being threatened by someone or some group they deemed subordinate in society. Historian Ula Taylor explains the many ways Barnett used these tools: â€Å"She challenged the myth that all White women were chaste, all Black women were without virtue, and all Black men were rapists by unleashing a massive international campaign against lynching. She documented the economic realities of lynching victims, the possibility that a White woman could be attracted to a Black man, and finally the fact that Black women were violated and abused at alarming rates. Barnett advocated self-help activities, but she also fought against Jim Crow facilities with economic boycotts and was not above armed resistance†. The focus of Wells-Barnett on the subordination of women was unique in that it looked at the problem not only through the lens of sex, but of race, class and geographic location. Undocumented immigration, commonly known as â€Å"illegal immigration†, is a hot button topic in American politics today. In the last ten years candidates for political office, political parties and interests groups have used this issue to gain support for their cause, resulting in a heated ongoing debate that affects the estimated 20 million undocumented immigrants that live and work in the United States today. What has become lost in the majority of these discussions is the diminished quality of life these immigrants are forced to endure due to failed social policy of US lawmakers, as well as the many positive contributions immigrants from all countries have on the economy and culture of the United States. Advocates for undocumented immigrants are faced with similar challenges faced by Charlotte Perkins Gilman and Ida B. Wells-Barnett. Both women fought for equality for those who did not have equal status in society and in the institutions that make up American government. The application of their theories to the plight of undocumented workers provides a unique lens in which to study these women and to test whether their theories can still be successfully applied to modern-day issues. The fight for the rights of undocumented immigrants in the United States today is being fought with many of the same tools used by Wells-Barnett during her fight for civil rights. These tools include economic boycotts, marches, policy advocacy and media coverage that highlight the injustices being endured by millions of men, women and children across the country. For example, in 2004 a documentary entitled â€Å"Farmingville: POV† told the story of two murders in the suburban town of Farmington, New York6. Two undocumented workers from Mexico were brutally murdered by the hands of white men because of their ethnicity and legal status. According to Wells-Barnett, these vicious murders occurred because of the pathology of the white men. The violence was a reaction to the dominant members of the society feeling their status in their community was being threatened by those they considered beneath them. The similarities in legal status of African Americans during the lifetime of Wells-Barnett and present-day undocumented immigrants is strikingly similar. Undocumented workers, like African Americans of that time, have different legal rights than their â€Å"American† counterparts, and legally they are not afforded the same rights and liberties as those considered â€Å"legal†. As she did in her studies of lynching of African-Americans, Wells-Barnett would also look at media representation and instances of racism within the police force and other law enforcement agencies as proof of her theory of domination. For example, she could cite an article recently published in Los Angeles, California in which Ernesto Cienfuegos boldly stated: â€Å"murderous ogres are today getting away with the horrific killings of undocumented Mexican immigrants due in part to uncaring and often racist USA   law enforcement agencies. Anti-immigrant hysteria, once the purview of fringe vigilante groups, has now afflicted some in the mainstream media and this has fanned the flames of anti-Mexican bigotry throughout the nation resulting in a series of heinous murders of undocumented immigrants that have included women and children†7. The language in this article reflects the beliefs held by Wells-Barnett concerning the rape, murder and other brutality faced by African Americans before and during her lifetime. The theories of Charlotte Perkins Gilman could also be applied to undocumented immigrants in the United States. Specifically, her assertions concerning unspecialized labor in the workforce. In â€Å"The Waste of Private Housekeeping†, Gilman explains her belief that because women are forced to be housewives and therefore cannot pursue their intellectual potential: â€Å"Neither the labor of the overworked mother, nor the labor of the perpetual lowgrade apprentice, can ever reach high efficiency. This element of waste is inherent in domestic industry and cannot be overcome. No special training can be applied to every girl and produce good results in all; no psychological gymnastics can elevate housework when housework, in economic status, is at the very bottom of industrial evolution†. Gilman argued that because women were kept to working inside the home they were not able to develop intellectually at the same level or rate as men. Because undocumented workers face deportation and other punishments because of their legal status, they also are often forced to remain in jobs in the service industry and as maids cleaning up and looking after the children of other families. They depend on the companies that hire them and the families that pay them for their income, and therefore have no choice but to work in deplorable working conditions with wages often lower than the federal minimum wage. The argument can also be made that many undocumented women are kept economically dependent on men because they are brought into the United States for use in the sex industry, and often kept as slaves. Without the necessary skills, education, or legal status these women cannot escape their terrible situation, and therefore remain dependent on men for their basic needs in return for work around the house and sex. Without Gilman and Wells Barnett it is hard to know what these women would think about the plight of undocumented immigrants. It is important to take into account the different time periods these women lived and worked in. For example, Wells-Barnett focused on African Americans because they were legally enslaved by slaveowners for centuries in the United States, and there were laws in place that protected these slaveowners from being held accountable for inflicting harm on any of their slaves. Undocumented immigrants, however, are afforded some basic rights that African Americans were not even after the abolishment of slavery, which Wells-Barnett might be quick to point out. While it can probably be proven that the media gives less attention to the murders and violence towards undocumented immigrants, the severity and social stigma involving lynching of African Americans in the South was certainly much different. Gilman’s theories are often criticized for their racist and xenophobic undertones, as she believed America was the best country in the World and Americans were morally superior to citizens of all other countries9. Might she then condemn undocumented workers and treat them with the same racism she afforded African Americans? In conclusion, the work of Charlotte Perkins Gilman and Ida B. Wells-Barnett is anything but limited to sociological theory. Both their lives impacted women around the world, and without their vision, intellect and passion for social change the status of women could not be where it is today. The lasting impression these women made on society is proven when their theories are applied to the plight of undocumented immigrants in the United States today. These women are responsible for the tools marginalized members of society use to gain access to the freedoms we as Americans strive to achieve. Although criticisms can and have been made against the theories of both women, their positive contributions to critical social theory far outweigh the negative. Because of these women’s passion for social justice and equality they too would join the fight for immigrant rights if they were alive today. I am honored to have been able to study and analyze their works and will carry the knowledge gained from this experience for the rest of my life.