Double Standards Every Woman Should Know Essay Example for Free

Double Standards Every Woman Should Know Essay For this book analysis I chose to read a book from this list of books that hasn’t been mentioned much in class. We have been talking about God and topics that are more controversial in society. I read the book He’s a Stud, She’s a Slut, and 49 Other Double Standards Every Woman Should Know by Jessica Valenti. This book was easy to read with Valentis short essays and thoughts on modern feminism, stereotypes, and heightening ones awareness to pervasive myths about women. Double standards are nothing new. Women deal with them every day. Take the common truism that women who sleep around are sluts while men are studs. None of the information was really unexpected or suprising to me because it’s all true. Every women is stereotyped by the way she talks, the way she dresses, her personality, etc, while a man isn’t really stereotyped because people think it’s ok for men to do the things they do, that it makes him look like a stud not a player. The examples Valenti uses are familiar and widespread: he’s tough, she’s a tomboy; he’s a bachelor, she’s a spinster; he’s angry, she’s PMSing; he’s successful, she’s a showoff. Perhaps the most widely cited is the â€Å"he’s the boss, she’s a bitch† scenario, which has been the subject of countless editorials in the past decade. Some of the questions I was seeking to answer when reading this book were am I a feminist? What can feminism do for me? This book made me realize I am a feminist. I believe men and women should all have equal rights and opportunities. Some people may not want to admit they are feminist because they think that feminists are mean, angry, man hating, hairy, lesbians, but they really aren’t. In all of reality feminism refers to movements aimed at establishing and defending equal political, economic, and social rights and equal opportunities for women. Some questions that have arisen are why is it that men grow distinguished and sexily gray as they age while women just get saggy and haggard? Isn’t it unfair that working moms are labeled bad for focusing on their careers while we shake our heads in disbelief when we hear about the occasional stay at home dad? 3a. â€Å"When I was in high school, I had a reputation—a bad one,† she writes. â€Å"It felt, at the time, like the reputation†¦had materialized out of nowhere. And I was confused.† That experience helped to shape her fascination with how the prevailing culture puts men and women into different categories, even when they act in the exact same way. She was categorized because of her sex which wasn’t fair to her, and it isn’t fair to many other women that are being categorized because of their sex. Men aren’t any better then women. 3b. When Valenti said â€Å"He’s dating a young woman, she’s a cougar?† Really? I thought men were cradle robbers. Men aren’t studs anymore, they’re usually players or, simply, douche bags. I probably agree that some double standards do exist but I tend to think that this whole patriarchal society thing, while it is somewhat valid, is honestly most often perpetuated by women j udging each other.

Essay on Hamlet and its Ophelia -- Essays on Shakespeare Hamlet

Hamlet and its Ophelia  Ã‚        Ã‚  Ã‚   In Shakespeare’s Hamlet there is an innocent young lady who comes to an undeserved and unbecoming end. She is Ophelia, the subject of this essay.    Bryan N. S. Gooch in "Review of The Shapes of Revenge: Victimization, Vengeance, and Vindictiveness in Shakespeare," presents Ophelia as the powerless victim:    Harry Keyishian [. . .] clearly presents in Chapter I, "Victimization and Revenge: Renaissance Voices," a useful survey of the problem, drawing from books on the passions and moving on to consider not only the power of the revenger but the powerlessness of victims, e.g., the Duchess of Gloucester, Ophelia. . . . (1).    Helena Faucit (Lady Martin) in On Some of Shakespeare's Female Characters comments on the misunderstood character of Ophelia:    My views of Shakespeare's women have been wont to take their shape in the living portraiture of the stage, and not in words. I have, in imagination, lived their lives from the very beginning to the end; and Ophelia, as I have pictured her to myself, is so unlike what I hear and read about her, and have seen represented on the stage, that I can scarcely hope to make any one think of her as I do. It hurts me to hear her spoken of, as she often is, as a weak creature, wanting in truthfulness, in purpose, in force of character, and only interesting when she loses the little wits she had. And yet who can wonder that a character so delicately outlined, and shaded in with touches so fine, should be often gravely misunderstood? (186)    Ophelia enters the play with her brother Laertes, who, in parting for school, bids her farewell and gives her advice regarding her relationship with Hamlet. Ophelia agrees to ab... ...-30.    Lehmann, Courtney and Lisa S. Starks. "Making Mother Matter: Repression, Revision, and the Stakes of 'Reading Psychoanalysis Into' Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet." Early Modern Literary Studies 6.1 (May, 2000): 2.1-24 <URL: http://purl.oclc.org/emls/06-1/lehmhaml.htm>.    Pennington, Michael. â€Å"Ophelia: Madness Her Only Safe Haven.† Readings on Hamlet. Ed. Don Nardo. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1999. Rpt. of â€Å"Hamlet†: A User’s Guide. New York: Limelight Editions, 1996.    Pitt, Angela. â€Å"Women in Shakespeare’s Tragedies.† Readings on The Tragedies. Ed. Clarice Swisher. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1996. Reprint of Shakespeare’s Women. N.p.: n.p., 1981.    Shakespeare, William. The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 1995. http://www.chemicool.com/Shakespeare/hamlet/full.html No line nos.   

Cola Wars Continue: Coke and Pepsi in 2010

Cola Wars Continue: Coke and Pepsi in 2010 A case discussion note January 17, 2012 1. Historically, why has the soft drink industry been so profitable? Historically, the soft carbonated soft drink (CSD) industry has been valued at $74 billion in the United States. In order to understand the reasons why the industry has been hugely profitable despite the ‘Cola Wars’, an examination of the CSD industry with Porter’s five forces analysis will be conducted. As market leaders, the analysis will be centred on both Coke and Pepsi (hereafter â€Å"C&P†). Threat of new competition: Barriers to entry in the CSD industry are extremely high and there are various factors to support this. Firstly, both C&P spend gargantuan amounts of funding of advertisement. According to Exhibit 8, in 2009 alone, both C&P spent $234 million and $145 million respectively in advertising expenditure. Therefore, while the actual initial capital investment needed to start up a CSD company is relatively economic, the amount required by new entrants to continually push their brand and gain visibility is extremely high. Due to these extreme levels of expenditure on marketing and brand awareness, the two cola companies have accrued exceedingly high levels of brand equity and consumer loyalty worldwide. As such, even with sufficient funds for start-up and subsequent advertising, new entrants are unlikely to sway persisting consumer tastes. Because of the sheer scale of both CSD companies, both C&P have pre-existing contracts with their bottlers, thus limiting their bottlers’ ability to produce similar products with rival brands. Additionally, through the use of extensive consolidation through the use of acquisitions and re-franchising of their bottlers, both C&P have made it essentially impossible for new entrants to find bottlers for the distribution of their drinks. In the event that the new entrants decide to build their own bottling plants (which is quoted to potentially cost hundreds of millions in the case), they would only find themselves facing insurmountable fixed start-up costs in addition to the ridiculous amount they have to spend on marketing. Even if new entrants somehow found a way to produce and market their drinks, the incumbents’ (C&P) far-reaching networks would make it impossible for them to secure any form of distribution channels. Shelf spaces in supermarkets were dominated by C&P because supermarkets were given a cut of the profit generated from the sales of their products. These cuts accumulate to a significant amount of profit-generation for the retailers. Additionally, combined, C&P owned 89% of national pouring rights. The fact that the incumbents had exclusivity in both supermarkets, fountain outlets, and other forms of retail channels would make it almost impossible for new entrants to distribute their products. Bargaining power of consumers: Historically, the two main customers of soft drink producers were supermarkets (29. 1% of distribution) and fountain outlets (23. 1%). In general, retail outlets have been unsuccessful in asserting much bargaining power over the industry. In part due to the level of fragmentation as well as their reliance on C&P as drivers of customer traffic. Longstanding contracts and acquisition of fountain outlets also serve to weaken consumer’s bargaining power. Bargaining power of suppliers: Major suppliers for C&P provided commodities in the form of cans, sugar, bottles, etc. These products were highly homogenous and could be substituted easily. The aluminium can industry, in particular, depended on firms like C&P because they were majority buyers. Due to such dependence, suppliers asserted little or no bargaining power over the industry. Intensity of competitive rivalry: Even though C&P are essentially a duopoly in the CSD industry, competition between the two have traditionally centred on marketing efforts like advertising, new products, and promotions rather than pricing. Their rivalry, historically, was also in a market with consistent growth. As such, profits were not adversely affected even though their rivalry was highly documented and publicised. Threat of substitutes: There are a number of alternative substitutes for soft drinks and these include beer, bottled water, tap water, juices, tea, coffee, wine, powdered drinks, milk, and distilled spirits. Yet, according to Exhibit 1, Americans, historically, consistently drank more CSDs than any other beverage. As such, the threat of substitutes affecting C&P’s profitability was limited. To further nullify the effects of substitutes, they also produced and promoted their own range of substitutes to reduce potential losses. 2. Compare the conomics of the concentrate business with that of the bottling business. Why is the profitability so different? Using data from Exhibit 4, we are able to see that the operating income of a concentrate producer is 32% of its net sales while that of a bottler is only 8%. The reason the bottling business earns significantly lesser than its concentrate counterpart can be attributed to two main factors – significantly higher cost of goods sold (COGS) and the existence of selling and delivery expense. We see that the COGS of a bottler are at 58%, much higher than the concentrate producer’s 22%. The reason for this difference is predominantly due to Master Bottler Contracts established to allow for a certain level of â€Å"price fixing† on the concentrate producers’ part. Additionally, as mentioned previously, raw materials for concentrate producers are abundant and homogenous; hence COGS for them will be significantly lower. Also, the bottler is in charge of selling and delivery, and hence incurs an 18% selling and delivery expense while there is no such expense on the concentrate producer’s part. These reasons explain why the concentrate business has a more profitable business model than the bottling business. . How has the growing popularity of non-carbonated soft drinks influenced the industry? Non-carbonated soft drinks have been gaining popularity in the past decade, increasing from 13% in 2000 to 17% in 2009. This growing popularity has resulted in the generation of both local and global strategies by CSD firms unwilling to lose out on the budding market. In order to capitalize on the opportunity, both C&P greatly expanded their lines of beverages to include sports drinks like Gatorade and tea-based drinks like Lipton. Majority of drinks introduced during this time were non-CSDs. Besides creating new products, Coke also aggressively gained market share through acquisitions and extending their fountain services to include coffee and tea. The non-CSD opportunities globally were also aggressively pursued by companies like C&P. To gain localized expertise, however, the soft drink companies did not merely think to introduce new products into foreign markets. Instead, they resorted to acquiring the respective market leading, non-CSD companies in the countries they chose to invest in. The companies of choice were usually major fruit juice producers. Beyond takeovers, C&P also tried their hands at innovation and localization of beverages. These mainly came in the form of integration of local drinks (e. g. blended green tea with Sprite) or utilization of local ingredients in the production of new drinks (e. g. beverages with Chinese herbs). The emergence and rapidly growing popularity of the non-CSD has garnered much retaliation from major players in the CSD industry. In order to get their share of the pie, they have formulated expansion strategies both locally and globally which seem to center around acquisition.

Wright Brothers First Fatal Airplane Crash

It had only been five years since Orville and Wilbur Wright made their famous flight at Kitty Hawk. By 1908, the Wright brothers were traveling across the United States and Europe in order to demonstrate their flying machine. Everything went well until that fateful day, September 17, 1908, which began with a cheering crowd of 2,000 and ended with pilot Orville Wright severely injured and passenger Lieutenant Thomas Selfridge dead. A Flight Exhibition Orville Wright had done this before. He had taken his first official passenger, Lt. Frank P. Lahm, into the air on September 10, 1908, at Fort Myer, Virginia. Two days later, Orville took another passenger, Major George O. Squier, up in the Flyer for nine minutes. These flights were part of an exhibition for the United States Army. The U.S. Army was considering purchasing the Wrights aircraft for a new military airplane. To get this contract, Orville had to prove that the airplane could successfully carry passengers. Though the first two trials had been successful, the third was to prove a catastrophe. Lift Off! Twenty-six-year-old Lieutenant Thomas E. Selfridge volunteered to be a passenger. A member of the Aerial Experiment Association (an organization headed by Alexander Graham Bell and in direct competition with the Wrights), Lt. Selfridge was also on the Army board that was assessing the Wrights Flyer at Fort Myers, Virginia. It was just after 5 p.m. on September 17, 1908, when Orville and Lt. Selfridge got into the airplane. Lt. Selfridge was the Wrights heaviest passenger thus far, weighing 175 pounds. Once the propellers were turned, Lt. Selfridge waved to the crowd. For this demonstration, approximately 2,000 people were present. The weights were dropped and the airplane was off. Out of Control The Flyer was up in the air. Orville was keeping it very simple and had successfully flown three laps over the parade ground at an altitude of approximately 150 feet. Then Orville heard light tapping. He turned and quickly looked behind him, but he didnt see anything wrong. Just to be safe, Orville thought he should turn off the engine and glide to the ground. But before Orville could shut off the engine, he heard two big thumps, which gave the machine a terrible shaking. The machine would not respond to the steering and lateral balancing levers, which produced a most peculiar feeling of helplessness. Something flew off the airplane. (It was later discovered to be a propeller.) Then the airplane suddenly veered right. Orville couldnt get the machine to respond. He shut off the engine. He kept trying to regain control of the airplane. . . . I continued to push the levers, when the machine suddenly turned to the left. I reversed the levers to stop the turning and to bring the wings on a level. Quick as a flash, the machine turned down in front and started straight for the ground. Throughout the flight, Lt. Selfridge had remained silent. A few times Lt. Selfridge had glanced at Orville to see Orvilles reaction to the situation. The airplane was about 75 feet in the air when it started a nose-dive to the ground. Lt. Selfridge let out a nearly inaudible Oh! Oh! The Crash Heading straight for the ground, Orville was not able to regain control. The Flyer hit the ground hard. The crowd was at first in silent shock. Then everyone ran over to the wreckage. The crash created a cloud of dust. Orville and Lt. Selfridge were both pinned in the wreckage. They were able to disentangle Orville first. He was bloody but conscious. It was harder to get Selfridge out. He too was bloody and had an injury to his head. Lt. Selfridge was unconscious. The two men were taken by stretcher to the nearby post hospital. Doctors operated on Lt. Selfridge, but at 8:10 p.m., Lt. Selfridge died from a fractured skull, without ever regaining consciousness. Orville suffered a broken left leg, several broken ribs, cuts on his head, and many bruises. Lt. Thomas Selfridge was buried with military honors at Arlington National Cemetery. He was the first man to die in an airplane. Orville Wright was released from the Army hospital on October 31. Though he would walk and fly again, Orville continued to suffer from fractures in his hip that had gone unnoticed at the time. Orville later determined that the crash was caused by a stress crack in the propeller. The Wrights soon redesigned the Flyer to eliminate the flaws that led to this accident. Sources Howard, Fred. Wilbur and Orville: A Biography of the Wright Brothers.  Alfred A. Knopf, 1987, New York.Prendergast, Curtis. The First Aviators. Time-Life Books, 1980, Alexandria, VA.Whitehouse, Arch. The Early Birds: The Wonders and Heroics of the First Decades of Flight. Doubleday Company, 1965, Garden City, NY.