Women and Family – the âdouble dayâ (balancing work and family) focussing on Mothers
Your essay must apply an intersectional analysis. As you cannot possibly discuss all groups of women
affected by the issue you have selected to write about in a short paper, you need to narrow your topic
further. To this end you should select a particular group of women. The group you select may be
privileged OR marginalized by the intersection of gender with race/ethnicity/indigeneity, class, sexuality,
or ability. For example, if you are discussing dating and hook-up culture in Canada, you may focus on
female college students, many of whom are white and middle class.
Consider the following questions when planning and researching your essay:
Which theoretical concepts will be helpful to develop an analytical framework that explains the problem
you have identified from a feminist perspective? To this end, the first section of your essay after the
introduction will begin by explaining the workings of patriarchy in relation to your broader topic. The
specifics of the framework you build will depend on your topic. If you are focusing on Aboriginal women,
for example, you will draw on key ideas from anti-racist feminism. Your framework is not meant to be a
summary of a particular theory (e.g. liberal feminism).
What kind of background information, including history is needed to understand the present situation?
What is the scope of the problem? What are some of the causes (depending on the topic, this could be
partially addressed in Q.2)? How have the lives of this group of women been negatively affected?
What types of resistance and feminist advocacy are being undertaken to address the problem? How
effective are these in leading to positive change?
Sample Solution
Perfect Social Moral Code GuidesorSubmit my paper for examination Endless supply of the perfect social good code, inside one sentence, it would be: be productive, not dangerous. We have numerous heavenly books, manuals on living, and self improvement tomes. Be that as it may, I feel this is the most demanding good code as far as a social setting. By social setting, I mean how we collaborate with others and act in social circumstances. However “be productive, not dangerous” sounds reasonable, there are numerous subtleties. Now and again it is hard to decide whether a demonstration is actually productive or dangerous. In the accompanying sections, these subtleties will be talked about in detail. We can choose if something is valuable or dangerous dependent on degree, for example. State your little child is misbehaving and broke a glass container, much after you advised him to quit snatching and playing with it a few times. You get an idea in your psyche to hit him to give a discipline for his underhanded activity. Be that as it may, you begin to feel befuddled about whether this would be helpful or ruinous. It may give him that not tuning in to you and breaking delicate things isn’t welcome, however then again, punishing him is a demonstration of hostility that will hurt him genuinely and maybe instruct him to utilize power in circumstances sometime down the road. There is no accurate off-base or right around these times. In any case, through your own thinking, you can choose to what degree it would be gainful or hurtful to him and the current circumstance. By and by, I would not beat my child, as I figure it accomplishes more demolition than development. In any case, that is simply me. Another subtlety to consider is the definition we provide for development and demolition. For instance, for certain individuals, development can never include brutality, while for other people, it could even be an essential piece of the condition. Take the case of returning in time and killing Hitler. Slaughtering somebody is unquestionably named a dangerous demonstration. Nonetheless, considering the conditions, I would accept that most of individuals would concur that executing Hitler at the tallness of his capacity in the event that they got the opportunity would be viewed as a valuable, in this way positive act. Accordingly, our definitions regularly decide our qualities and how we act upon those standards. Moreover, development and decimation can be sifted through a sociopoltical focal point. Development can be viewed as acceptable to a few, and awful to other people. Take for example making new homes in a forested zone. Indeed, homes for people are made, yet in addition the territory for incalculable creatures is being annihilated, or possibly adjusted to an extraordinary. Development, on the off chance that it is valid, it ought to be advantageous to all gatherings included. That is a difficult task, however. Each progression we take eliminates microbes and different microorganismsâand maybe plants, creepy crawlies, and who recognizes what else. Decimation can be viewed as a piece of every second. Additionally, what a lion’s share may see as a helpful may be viewed as damaging to a minority. Is there an approach to figure out which side is right? It is practically inconceivable. Being in the dominant part as far as an ethical standpoint doesn’t mean it is right, or progressively suitable. There have been numerous examples in history when acts were seen as helpful, yet were later observed as dangerous with an advanced focal point. The Crusades, a progression of strict wars between essentially Christians and Muslims, were seen truly in an ideal light in its time by Christians. In any case, in the last 50% of the Crusades, conclusion about these heavenly wars were not lively among the Christian unwavering. What’s more, in the event that one discussions about the current view on the Crusades, most of Christians will concede that it is a stain in their history books. Thus, regularly history isn’t thoughtful to the discernments we once held. Despite the fact that I consider “Be valuable, not ruinous” the most strong one-sentence social good code, it not without its subtleties and problems. For example, how much we think about something productive or ruinous, meanings of being valuable and dangerous, and development and annihilation seen through a sociopolitical focal point are for the most part subtleties. These errors contain the disarray that this perfect social good code causes. Be that as it may, I can’t envision a superior code than the one expressed in this paper as far as carrying on with one’s life in a social setting.>
Perfect Social Moral Code GuidesorSubmit my paper for examination Endless supply of the perfect social good code, inside one sentence, it would be: be productive, not dangerous. We have numerous heavenly books, manuals on living, and self improvement tomes. Be that as it may, I feel this is the most demanding good code as far as a social setting. By social setting, I mean how we collaborate with others and act in social circumstances. However “be productive, not dangerous” sounds reasonable, there are numerous subtleties. Now and again it is hard to decide whether a demonstration is actually productive or dangerous. In the accompanying sections, these subtleties will be talked about in detail. We can choose if something is valuable or dangerous dependent on degree, for example. State your little child is misbehaving and broke a glass container, much after you advised him to quit snatching and playing with it a few times. You get an idea in your psyche to hit him to give a discipline for his underhanded activity. Be that as it may, you begin to feel befuddled about whether this would be helpful or ruinous. It may give him that not tuning in to you and breaking delicate things isn’t welcome, however then again, punishing him is a demonstration of hostility that will hurt him genuinely and maybe instruct him to utilize power in circumstances sometime down the road. There is no accurate off-base or right around these times. In any case, through your own thinking, you can choose to what degree it would be gainful or hurtful to him and the current circumstance. By and by, I would not beat my child, as I figure it accomplishes more demolition than development. In any case, that is simply me. Another subtlety to consider is the definition we provide for development and demolition. For instance, for certain individuals, development can never include brutality, while for other people, it could even be an essential piece of the condition. Take the case of returning in time and killing Hitler. Slaughtering somebody is unquestionably named a dangerous demonstration. Nonetheless, considering the conditions, I would accept that most of individuals would concur that executing Hitler at the tallness of his capacity in the event that they got the opportunity would be viewed as a valuable, in this way positive act. Accordingly, our definitions regularly decide our qualities and how we act upon those standards. Moreover, development and decimation can be sifted through a sociopoltical focal point. Development can be viewed as acceptable to a few, and awful to other people. Take for example making new homes in a forested zone. Indeed, homes for people are made, yet in addition the territory for incalculable creatures is being annihilated, or possibly adjusted to an extraordinary. Development, on the off chance that it is valid, it ought to be advantageous to all gatherings included. That is a difficult task, however. Each progression we take eliminates microbes and different microorganismsâand maybe plants, creepy crawlies, and who recognizes what else. Decimation can be viewed as a piece of every second. Additionally, what a lion’s share may see as a helpful may be viewed as damaging to a minority. Is there an approach to figure out which side is right? It is practically inconceivable. Being in the dominant part as far as an ethical standpoint doesn’t mean it is right, or progressively suitable. There have been numerous examples in history when acts were seen as helpful, yet were later observed as dangerous with an advanced focal point. The Crusades, a progression of strict wars between essentially Christians and Muslims, were seen truly in an ideal light in its time by Christians. In any case, in the last 50% of the Crusades, conclusion about these heavenly wars were not lively among the Christian unwavering. What’s more, in the event that one discussions about the current view on the Crusades, most of Christians will concede that it is a stain in their history books. Thus, regularly history isn’t thoughtful to the discernments we once held. Despite the fact that I consider “Be valuable, not ruinous” the most strong one-sentence social good code, it not without its subtleties and problems. For example, how much we think about something productive or ruinous, meanings of being valuable and dangerous, and development and annihilation seen through a sociopolitical focal point are for the most part subtleties. These errors contain the disarray that this perfect social good code causes. Be that as it may, I can’t envision a superior code than the one expressed in this paper as far as carrying on with one’s life in a social setting.>
Is this question part of your Assignment?
We can help
Our aim is to help you get A+ grades on your Coursework.
We handle assignments in a multiplicity of subject areas including Admission Essays, General Essays, Case Studies, Coursework, Dissertations, Editing, Research Papers, and Research proposals
Header Button Label: Get Started NowGet Started Header Button Label: View writing samplesView writing samples