Taking the Lid Off the Victorian Era Essay Example for Free

Taking the Lid Off the Victorian Era Essay The Victorian Era has been a time of power and wealth. A journey of evolution took place in this period. People of this generation have a tremendously exciting age that at some point it was called the Second English Renaissance (Moore, 2007). After extensive research on this, I was duty-bound to take a stand on the status of the women of this period. Women have a role in this society. They are as what one writer had said called saints but saints with no legal rights. The Victorian Era viewed women as immaculate- pure and they put women on a pedestal. During this period, they envisioned women as so called Ideal Women. Thus, staying pure and clean from all immoral acts. Bearing offspring is a huge responsibility and tending to her household once she is married are her main preoccupations (DeBay, 2007). However, I sense that there is a great deal of deprivation and injustice that took place on the Victorian Era. Since the women status are defined as that of Ideal Women. And with the way that they have envisioned the Victorian Women, I can truly say that there is a great influence in how women are being treated in this contemporary period of ours. One key issue is the Victorian marriage. Women in this period have made a stature of marrying at a very young age for the reason that their parents want them to get married. The women in that age were born and raised just to get married and bear children. As they get married , women begin to lose their identity. Their husbands treat them as their own possession. Women married because of stature. They do not want to risk being shunned by their families if she marries someone who does not have the same stature or does not hold the same or higher standard of living (DeBay, 2007). And when a woman does break her engagement to her betrothed then she will be outcast by the society and never shall she marry again. It is the ultimate manner of losing your social status. To put it straightforwardly, women on this era are projected to be perfect women. They need to be very womanly and neither can they demand on the things that hurt them. They need to just endure the pain and sufferings becoming a wife. They are expected to be the housewife. They aren’t taught to complain but rather, are taught to follow all demands of the their husbands. Divorce is forbidden. If she divorces her husband then there would not be alimony and the custody of their children will be with the husbands. They are not given equal rights on child rearing once they divorce or separate to their husbands (Moore, 2007). Sex and women have a different process as well. Men are considered to be polygamous in the Victorian period. However, a woman caught doing so will be put to trial and is considered unclean. Thus losing her status in society. A man can go and satisfy his needs to another woman. Men did not have any restrictions, which makes it worse for the wives, because they just need to accept their husbands’ behavior. In effect, her reputation is at stake in society. In fundamental nature, this behavior of women has been carried on to this day. Moreover, there is a great deal of emotional and physical abuse of women in terms of sexual experience to women. Their husbands feel that this is just the sole obligation of their wives – that is, to provide them the sexual pleasure that they want. In these terms, no rights were given to women (Battan, 1999). One other issue is that women were not given the chance for to educate themselves. They were ridiculed and dismissed once they get into the fields which, on that particular era were considered to be a unnecessary for women to take. That only men are the authorized to take. Women were not encouraged to attend a university. For the very reason that women are supposed to be an ornament of the society. Arts and Literature, however, were the subjects that women should learn and were of great importance in the education of women (Miller, 2007). Women had limited rights. Their incomes do not belong to them but to their husbands. They surrender every penny they earn to their spouses. They cannot go and have some contracts with them without the knowledge of their husbands. Further, their husbands need to approve of the contracts as well (Battan, 1999). Finally, I can truly say that the Victorian Women has slowly emerged their limitations and awareness on the aspects that were discussed and analyzed. These key issues until now have been controversial with the new generation. Limiting myself to this study, there is a similarity on the Victorian and the generation of today. While we are trying to break on the women of the Victorian Era, we are still on the process of trying to be free with the laws, rights and procedure that had happened on this controversial and tremendous period (Battan, 1999; Miller, 2007). In conclusion, many women’s groups emerged throughout the decades to diversify and fight for the role of women in the society. Giving women more freedom and rights as an individual and not just as a partner of a spouse. The Victorian Era as much as grandiose it is; women suffered more in this period. And it is with great anticipation, hope and fulfillment that this era has slowly progressed .While there are still causes for despair, there have been milestones in the struggle for gender equality. References Battan, J. (1999). The ‘rights’ of husbands and the ‘duties’ of wives: power and desire in the american bedroom, 1850-1910. Journal of Family History, 24, 165-86. DeBay, R. (2007). Hygiene et Physiologie du Marriage. Retreived on June 14, 2007 from http://caxton. stockton. edu/browning/stories/storyReader$3 Miller, I. (2007). Victorian past. Retrieved on June 14, 2007 from http://www. victoriaspast. com/frontporch/victorianera. htm Moore, M. (2003). Women in the Victorian Age. London: Mcmillan.

pride and prejudice :: essays research papers

PRIDE AND PREJUDICE Jane Austen presents many themes in her novel Pride and Prejudice. Some of these themes are relevant to today's society but none so much as the main themes pride and prejudice. There are two main themes because one usually leads to another. Coincidentally these two themes make up the title of the novel. Pride is something everybody should have. But not everybody should have too much. The amount of pride that one has in himself/herself is one of the first things one is characterized by. When Elizabeth first met Mr. Darcy and for some time after, she perceived him to be conceited, as did everyone else of her family. Mr. Darcy was not well liked too well by the Bennets for this reason. Too much pride in one's self is; too, present at the in today's society. This is usually linked to the wealth of a person. People who are wealthy tend to have an over abundant amount pride. They like to brag about their riches and show off what they have. Why do they do this? They do this to rub it in to the faces of lower class society. Overwhelming pride is just not seen in Hollywood or big cities; it is everywhere. Most commonly it is in schools. Some students tend to think it is fun to gloat about what they have, but this may lead to them being disliked by others. Nobody wants to listen to a spoiled kid! Pride can be a good thing and it should be but it may lead to some cases of the second theme of the novel, prejudice. Prejudice is viewed in all places and in all forms. In Pride and Prejudice, Mr. Darcy's pride leads to the Bennet's, especially Elizabeth's, prejudice toward him. This is because Mr. Darcy is so much wealthier than the Bennets and he lets them know. He shows much prejudice against people of lower societies. Elizabeth thinks of him as a handsome, but a too good, conceited, "I'm too good for anybody," male. Even though she is attracted to him, she refuses his proposal due to her prejudice toward him. He does not help in her saying "yes" when he tells her how he sees her and her family; poor and unworthy. He even states that this proposal should probably not even be taking place due to these feelings.

Life in the Country Verse Life in the City

Life in the City VS. Life in the Country Even though amenities are more accessible when you live in a big city, it is healthier to live in the country because of the differences in culture and the surroundings. It is healthier and safer to live in the country rather than in the city for a number of reasons, one being that there is less congestion out in the country. With congestion and over population of a city brings gangs and violence. With gangs come drugs, killings, and murders.People become very territorial when a space is over crowed or congested. It was reported that last year in the first week of summer in Battle Creek, Michigan, there was a total of 13 shootings all related to either gangs or drugs. When you live out in the country there are less people living right on top of each other. There isn’t a large amount of crime and acts of violence, because people have their space and they respect others space as well. They don’t feel as though they have to fight to keep what they have because there is plenty to go around.With that being said it is my personal opinion that with more space there is less drama that would build up the kinds of animosity that would make someone want to commit murder. Which is why growing up in the country I can’t remember a time when we had to make certain that our doors and windows were locked, that goes for both our home and our vehicles. Not only is there an increase in crime there is also an increase in pest, rodents, and critters. There are more cases of cockroach infestations in a larger city then there is out in the country that is all because of the congestion.Having to live with cockroaches creates a major health hazard because of the risks posed by cockroach antigens for people who suffer from asthma, also because they carry disease-causing germs. Some of the methods people traditionally use to eliminate them cause additional health hazards. Pesticides are never healthy to breathe in to even inges t. If you put down bate to kill them you risk them tracking it all over your home. If you have pets you have to worry about them consuming it before the cockroaches.Another way people commonly try to treat a cockroach infestation is to bomb their house. There is a reason you can’t be home for this kind of treatment, and why you need to open all the windows in your home at least an hour before you can return. It is very harmful to breathe in. Cockroach antigens are made up of proteins that can be found in the insect’s saliva, feces, eggs, and shredded cuticles. These antigens can cause allergic reactions and asthmatic episodes when they are inhaled because they are airborne.According to health house, â€Å"A large study supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) has demonstrated conclusively that the combination of cockroach allergy and exposure to the insects is an important cause of asthma-related illness and hospitalizations among children in U. S. inner-city areas. † There is a major difference in the surroundings that can affect a person’s health from living in a larger city versus living in the country. The food that we consume in a larger city is so full of preservatives and additives. There are more fast food restaurants available for a quick meals.Some of the side effects of eating out and ordering in all of the time include high cholesterol, and clogged arteries. The majority of foods found out in the country are organic, because they are home grown. Living in the country as a child we always had a garden with fresh vegetables. Another difference is the air that we breathe when living in a larger city, because there are so many fast food chains and factories, there is higher pollution in the air. For extremely larger cities like Chongqing, Beijing, and Shanghai they have smog alerts where you have to wear a protective mask to prevent you from breathing in harmful pollutants.When you live in the country you’re not at risk of this because there aren’t as many factories creating these pollutants, so the air is crisp and fresh. The worst thing you have to worry about in the country is when farmers lay down the fertilizer for their crops that is an unpleasant smell. One good thing about living in a larger city as opposed to living out in the country would be that there are hospitals. When you live out in the country there aren’t as many hospitals available to you.Just like with everything else there is so much more open space and less people, which create less reasons and finances to have a hospital, because there are fewer reasons for health risks and that you are less likely to have to rush off to an emergency room, doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be one close by you never know what might happen. A farmer might get his hand caught in a machine while trying to perform routine maintenance. A child could ingest some sort of chemicals s uch as pesticides. This would have to be the only down fall I can see about life in the country versus living in a large city.However for an extreme emergency there is always an option of having an air lift. You can also still call 911 and have an ambulance out to your place maybe even sometimes faster than if you were living in the city just because there is less traffic. There are always going to be things that challenge our health, wellness, and survival; however, the risks are higher living in the city as opposed to living in the country for two main reasons. First when living in the city there is so much more congestion, overcrowding, and diversity that can bring out the worst in people; in this case, the worst of these brought out are drugs and violence.When you live out in the country you don’t have to worry about these kinds of things as much. The second thing that challenges our health and wellness is what we consume. The air that we breathe to the nourishment we giv e to our bodies. We are not perfect but the little things that we can change to improve our situation the closer we can come to optimal health and wellness. References americanlungassociation. com battlecreekenquire. com healthhouse. com

Circumstantial Evidence The Scott Peterson Trial

The trial of Scott Peterson for the murders of his wife Laci and their unborn child Conner is a classic example of prosecution based almost solely on circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is evidence that has no direct proof but is instead based on a certain provable fact or facts used to form a credible theory of the events of a case. Even the most credible eye-witness testimony is only circumstantial because there are so many influences that can have an impact on human recall. In cases lacking direct evidence, the prosecution must attempt to provide evidence of the circumstances from which the judge and jury can logically deduct, or reasonably infer, a factual theory of the case that cannot be proven directly. Its up to the prosecutors to show through a set of circumstances that their theory of what took place is the only logical deduction—that the circumstances can be explained by no other possible theory. Conversely, in cases of circumstantial evidence, the job of the defense is to show that the same circumstances might be explained by an alternative theory. In order to avoid conviction, all a defense attorney must do is create reasonable doubt. If even one juror is convinced strongly enough that the prosecutions explanation of the circumstances is flawed, the case may be dismissed. No Direct Evidence in Peterson Case In the trial of Scott Peterson, there was very little, if any, direct evidence connecting Peterson to the murder of his wife and the death of their unborn child. It became the prosecutions mandate to prove that the circumstances surrounding her death and the disposal of her body could be linked to no one other than her husband. In the sixth week of the trial, Defense attorney Mark Geragos was able to cast doubt on two key pieces of evidence that supported the prosecutions theory that Peterson had dumped his wifes body in San Francisco Bay: the homemade anchors Peterson allegedly used to sink the body and a hair collected from his boat that was consistent with his wifes DNA. Alternative Theories in the Peterson Case Photos presented by police investigator Henry Dodge Hendee and subsequent questions from prosecutors were used to show the jury that Peterson had used a water pitcher found at his warehouse to mold five boat anchors—four of which were missing. Under cross-examination, however, Geragos was able to get Hendee to acknowledged to jurors that the prosecutions own expert witness had determined that the pitcher found in fertilizer salesman Petersons warehouse could not have been used to make the cement boat anchor found in his boat. One of the few forensic pieces of evidence the prosecution did have was a six-inch dark hair consistent with Laci Petersons that was found on a pair of pliers in Petersons boat. Geragos showed Hendee two police photos: one of a camouflage jacket in a duffle bag taken at Petersons warehouse and the other showing it inside the boat. Under Geragos questioning, Hendee testified that the hair and pliers were collected as evidence after a crime scene technician took the second photo (of the jacket in the boat). Geragos was able to argue that it was possible that hair might have been transferred from Laci Petersons head to her husbands coat to the pliers in the boat without her ever having been inside the boat. Circumstantial Evidence Wins Over Direct Evidence As with all circumstantial evidence cases, as the Scott Peterson trial progressed, Geragos continued to offer alternative explanations for each facet of the prosecutions case in hopes of creating reasonable doubt in at least one jurors mind. His efforts did not succeed. On November 12, 2004, a jury found Scott Peterson guilty of first-degree murder in the death of his wife, Laci,  and of second-degree murder in the death of their unborn child, Conner. Three members of the jury spoke to reporters about what led them to convict Peterson. It was hard to narrow it down to one specific issue, there were so many, said jury foreman Steve Cardosi. Collaboratively, when you add it all up, it doesnt appear to be any other possibility.   The jurors pointed to these deciding factors: The bodies of Laci and their unborn child washed up close to where Peterson said he went fishing on the day she was reported missing.Peterson was a proven liar.Peterson showed no remorse for the loss of Laci and their unborn child, including continuing his romantic liaison with his girlfriend Amber Frey in the days following Lacis disappearance. While Mark Geragos did manage to offer alternative explanations for much of the circumstantial evidence that prosecutions presented during the trial, there was little he could do to negate the effect Petersons lack of emotions had on the jury. Peterson was  sentenced to death by lethal injection in 2005. He is currently on death row in San Quentin State Prison.