Recent orders
No Puerto Rico Move For Billionaire John Paulson
No Puerto Rico Move For Billionaire John Paulson
Contents
TOC o “1-3” h z u Executive summary PAGEREF _Toc381074927 h 1Brief summary of the article PAGEREF _Toc381074928 h 1Views on the issues PAGEREF _Toc381074929 h 2Conclusion PAGEREF _Toc381074930 h 2
Executive summaryThis article is about John Paulson a billionaire fund manager of SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico. He is the founder and president of Paulso & Co and a native of New York. There are claims in the media of his supposed intentions of moving to Puerto Rico and establishing a residence there but he denied this claims. However, he has considered investing in real estate but has absolutely no plans of making the island his permanent residence. There are also claims of mass exodus from Puerto Rico due to a stagnant economy and crime among other problems (Burton, Ruhle, & Mider, 2013).
Brief summary of the articleThere are various opposing views that are brought out in this article by several parties. The first party is the media. The media has reported severally on John Paulson’s intention to move permanently from New York to Puerto Rico Island. They base their claims on the fact that John Paulson is taking advantage of the changing tax laws and hence the move will help him cut his tax bill. The media support their report by claiming that John Paulson’s company has assets that are worth about $18 billion under its management and therefore the company would benefit if the president moved to the island (Roche La Julia ,2013).This is due to the fact that the new tax law would be of great advantage to John Paulson since as a new resident he would be exempted from tax on the gains in his capital since this is the principal source of income for extremely wealthy investors like John Paulson. The other part which is John Paulson himself denies this claims made in reports by the media. He denies having any intentions of establishing a permanent residence in Puerto Rico. He does not deny having considered real estate investments in the island but has no plans whatsoever of establishing a permanent residence in Puerto Rico.
There is totally different proposal set forth which claims that if John Paulson is really considering making Puerto Rico his home the move would be quite an unusual one. This is because many people have been moving out of Puerto Rico in the recent years due to the fact that the island’s economy has been a stagnant one. In the same island there are problems such as crime among other problems. The population has gone down and it is now 3.7 million. This raises the question as to whether moving to Puerto Rico is a wise decision.
Views on the issuesThe media has a right to report on the views they have on the matter however the person who has the answer is John Paulson himself. Therefore he should be given a chance to defend himself and tell the public his stand on the issue. My view on the issue is that John Paulson should not consider making Puerto Rico his permanent home. This is because many people are leaving the island due to the stagnant economy and other problems then why should he consider going to live let alone invest in such an area.
ConclusionI think John Paulson did not move to Puerto Rico. The change in tax law was not a good enough reason to make him move to the island. He might have considered other factors such as the stagnant economy and other problems facing the island and withdrew any intentions that he had of moving if he had any. He just continued managing SAN JUAN from New York as he was doing before.
Work cited
Burton, Katherine. Ruhle, Stephanie & Mider, Zachary. Bloomberg Businessweek.Billionaire Paulson May Move to Puerto Rico for Tax Break. (2013).Retrieved April 8, 2013 from http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-03-14/billionaire-paulson-may-move-to-puerto-rico-for-tax-breakRoche La Julia. Hedge Fund Billionaire John Paulson Not Defecting To Puerto Rico To Dodge Taxes. (2013).Retrieved April 8, 2013 from http://www.businessinsider.com/john-paulson-not-moving-to-puerto-rico-2013-3
No Middle Ground The Patriarchal Environment In Miltons Paradise Lost
No Middle Ground: The Patriarchal Environment In Milton’s Paradise Lost
On the relationship between Adam and Eve in Paradise Lost, Susanne Woods perhaps states it best when she argues that Milton, for the most part, appropriates his culture’s views on the inferior position of woman. Milton is in the awkward predicament between following cultural and biblical authority while attempting to give Eve a semblance of dignity, respect, and intelligence—a situation which motivates some Milton scholars to work around Milton’s often ambiguous message by asserting that the first marriage is both equal in some aspects while identifying a patriarchal hierarchy in other aspects of the work. A situation particularly difficult to assess are the prelapsarian and postlapsarian conditions of Eve’s inferiority to Adam.
Margaret Thickstun emphasizes Milton’s stance, which in The Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce emphasizes that woman was created for the needs of man. As Thickstun contends, this inferior role reveals itself even in the prelapsarian Eden. She suggests that even though Eve departs yet sinless from Adam in Book IX to tend the garden on her own, it is “the independence of Eve’s action, not just the sinfulness of it, for which she is guilty” (74). Thus, Eve’s separation is the disobedience towards Adam before the disobedience of eating the fruit, for Adam clearly warns her to “leave not the faithful side / that gave thee being, still shades thee and protects”/ (9. 265-6). Mary Nyquist argues that many apologetic feminist scholars’ intentions of Adam and Eve’s equality are misplaced in light of the “man/men” noun discrepancies in chapters I and II of Genesis. She also frames her argument around Rachel Speght’s defense of Eve and “the spiritual equality of the sexes” (107) regardless of Eve being the second human formed. Diane McColley comes close to a middle-ground view of the Edenic marriage while foregrounding her argument within an almost apologetic framework. She argues that Adam and Eve are merely growing and responding individuals under a benevolent God, and that Eve’s submission is beneficial to both her and Adam. McColley does pose an important question, however: what is Eve’s motive in the separation scene? Is it obstinacy or productivity? In other words, does one see Eve’s disobedience before or after eating the fruit? Much like McColley, Kristin McColgan contends that Paradise Lost is an intricate “interplay between hierarchy and reciprocity through language and structure” that reveals how both Adam and Eve “exalt[s] not self but other in an idyllic, dynamic relationship” (76). It would be Desma Polydorou, however, who comes closest to my opinion of Paradise Lost as a purely patriarchal masterpiece, as it were. Like Nyquist, Polydorou refers to Speght in her article and contends that Milton frequently overlooks Speght’s biblical examples that depict the marriage as equal. Polydorou examines the pre and postlapsarian conditions of inequality and concludes that “Milton does not share Speght’s commitment” to promoting woman’s equality to man (30). I argue that the first marriage was depicted by Milton in Paradise Lost as a purely patriarchal construct in both pre and postlapsarian modes. As Woods emphasizes, Milton closely adheres to Pauline doctrine as it pertains to the subjugation and inferiority of women in regards to men. As Anne Ferry asserts, Milton was a man who “held with passionate conviction…that the Bible is a record of divinely inspired truth [and] it is the Christian’s duty to interpret and follow, not to contradict and ignore” (113). As Indeed, Milton’s according absolute authority to the Pauline scriptures directly influences the verse in Paradise Lost, and as I will show, Milton is expert at returning again and again to the hierarchical Pauline context of patriarchy, be it subtly or overtly. Through this analysis I will illustrate how Milton designed the epic to conform to a biblical patriarchal hierarchy.
Mary Nyquist describes the last line of the following verse as “stridently masculinist”:
…though both
Not equal, as their sex not equal seemed;
For contemplation he and valor formed,
For softness she and sweet attractive grace,
He for God only, she for God in him…(IV.295-299)
This verse points to a hierarchical concept of Adam and Eve’s paradisal marriage. Line 299 suggests Adam’s superior standing with God alone, while Eve must somehow touch God through Adam. Eve is made of and for Adam; therefore she is subordinate to him. Indeed, Milton even tells us that they are not equal in line 296, and while Adam is replete with intellectual prowess and valor, Eve is for Adam’s eyes a comfort. Line 298, then, refers back to Milton’s Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce wherein woman is created for the needs of man, be they physical or mental. Later (in IV.490) Eve says she sees “How beauty is excelled by manly grace / And wisdom, which alone is truly fair.” These lines not only imply the superiority of “manly grace,” but that man’s wisdom is good enough without the aid of woman’s intellect. Nevertheless, Adam has an answer to Eve’s admission of “inferiority” wherein he declares his knowledge of Nature’s intention to make Eve “th’ inferior,” yet he is in awe of her wisdom and beauty, “As one intended first, not after made…/ (VIII.540-555). In an answer to this evaluation by Adam, Raphael tells Adam in so many words to be wise and self-assured, thus “The more she will acknowledge thee her head” (VIII.574). What we have here is Milton using a character, (Adam) to interrupt the hierarchy that Milton wishes to impose. In comes Raphael to shore up Milton’s efforts. This divergence of wills can be seen frequently in Paradise Lost, especially between Raphael and Adam, and Adam and Eve. To this end, we see Milton playing with the idea of Eve’s subjection between characters. Eve is amenable to the idea while Adam cannot quite grasp the idea because he finds her so perfect. It is only when Raphael admonishes Adam of his folly that Milton’s own patriarchal adherence becomes clear, even though Adam dismisses Raphael’s concern:
So much delights me as those graceful acts,
Those thousand decencies that daily flow
From all her words and actions mixed with love
And sweet compliance, which declare unfeigned
Union of mind, or in us both one soul;
Harmony to behold in wedded pair
More grateful than harmonious sound to the ear. (VIII.600-606)
This verse reveals Adam to be ardently besotted with Eve, and indeed can find no wrong in her person. Milton does, of course, defend his stance on patriarchy in line 603 where Eve is depicted as a loving, compliant woman. Yet he has Adam declare that he and Eve are but one soul, harmonious in marriage. This reciprocity refers to McColgan’s assertion that Adam and Eve complete each other in “an idyllic, dynamic relationship” (76). Even so, the reader can almost taste the disaster to come due to Adam’s wish to be equal with Eve, while Milton adroitly, and repeatedly, tips the scales in favor of patriarchy.
According to Ferry, Milton accomplishes this by taking Genesis and certain New Testament scripture, “shape[s] what he c[an] not change,” and makes decisions on choices that are allowed him (113). It would seem, then, that Milton competently molds his epic to follow closely those scriptures that enjoin patriarchy. A biblical verse that perhaps influenced Milton, for he “was married according to this rite in 1642” (Ferry 115), is the Pauline doctrine addressed to married couples:
Ye women, submit your selves unto your own husbands,
as unto the Lord: for the husband is the wives head, even
as Christ is the head of the Church…so likewise let the
wives also be in subjection unto their own husbands in
all things…let the wife reverence her husband…ye wives,
submit your selves unto your own husbands… (KJV)
And the Pauline doctrine continues,
For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the
man.
For the man was not created for the woman’s sake: but
the woman for the man’s sake. (1 Cor. 11:10-13)
Of course, this last verse correlates with the poem’s most oft quoted line, according to Ferry, “He for God only, she for God in him” (IV.299). As I mentioned earlier, this is a direct implication of Eve’s “second in line” status, and does indeed reflect back to the Corinthian scripture above. While Adam appears to accede to this doctrine, “For well I understand in the prime end / Of Nature her th’ inferior, in the mind / And inward Faculties…” (VII.540-42), when it comes down to it, Adam does not want to believe it,
yet when I approach
Her loveliness, so absolute she seems
And in her self compleat, so well to know
Her own, that what she wills to do or say,
Seems wisest, vertuousest, discreetest, best;
All higher knowledge in her presence falls… (VIII. 546-551)
As Ferry contends, after this verse Raphael reproofs Adam for his vagaries, and had the discussion ended with the reproof, we would not get what Ferry refers to as a reflection of Milton’s “divorce tracts [which] praise the ‘sweet and mild familiarity of love,’ the ‘fit union of their souls’ between man and wife” (124). This verse to which Ferry refers is Adam’s answer to the angel’s reproof wherein “Adam rephrases his feelings for Eve to make clear that they ‘subject not’” (124). Ferry contends that “Adam’s speech is therefore the culmination of Milton’s efforts to lift Eve’s unfallen nature out of the place assigned to it in the Old and New Testaments” (124). It is also an effort by Milton to express his own views of marriage in the poem, according to Ferry, and while Adam and Eve’s marriage is “the fulfillment of ideal human experience” (125), I suggest that Milton only reveals this ideal in order to show in Book IX how damning the Fall really is.
If the paradisal marriage of Adam and Eve is patriarchal, the postlapsarian one is even more so. Full of blame and self-serving verses of confession, Books IX and X bring to fruition the true status of women during Milton’s time. Both blaming the other for their inadequacies, Adam and Eve quarrel as Eve asks Adam why he let down his guard,
Being as I am, why didst not thou the head
Command me absolutely not to go,
Going into such danger as thou saidst?
Too facile then thou didst not much gainsay,
Nay, didst permit, approve, and fair dismiss.
Had thou been firm and fixed in thy dissent,
Neither had I transgressed, nor thou with me. (IX. 1155-1161)
Her blame is met with certain disdain from Adam, who rues the day he trusted her to work alone,
Thus it shall befall
Him who to worth in women overtrustingLets her will rule; restraint she will not brook,
And left to herself, if evil thence ensue,
She first his weak indulgence will accuse. (IX. 1182-1186)
The last verse depicts woman as irresponsible, weak, and too curious for her own good. One may also question whether Milton was familiar with Joseph Swetnam’s 1615 publication of The Araignment of Lewde, idle, froward, and unconstant women which determined that women had an “inherent evil nature” (Polydorou, 24). Swetnam’s misogynistic treatise was not lost on Rachel Speght, whose 1617 publication A Mouzell for Melastomusi directly responded to his rant. Swetnam’s contention that women are inherently evil leads me full circle to address McColley’s query as mentioned earlier—what is Eve’s real motive for separating from Adam as they worked the garden? Is it obstinacy or productivity? I would argue that it is a bit of free will combined with curiosity, for Eve knows they will be tempted, and she knows of the Tree of Knowledge. Her curiosity can only be resolved if she disobeys Adam’s first command to not go and this she does. As Adam says, she is free to exercise her will, but she will be better served if she uses her God given reason,
But God left free the will, for what obeys
Reason, is free, and reason he made right,
But bid her well beware, and still erect,
Least by some fair appearing good surprised
She dictate false, and misinform the will
To do what God expressly hath forbid. (IX. 351-356)
Thus, Eve transgresses not only God, but her husband as well. This is the first disobedience; eating the fruit is the second.
In this paper I have attempted to show how Adam and Eve’s relationship in Paradise Lost is not an egalitarian one, before or after the Fall. Middle ground analyses do not explain Milton’s defense of the biblical Pauline doctrine of marriage, and feminist versions do little to persuade those who view Paradise Lost as a work reflecting the culture of Milton’s time. To this end, I would argue that Milton artfully designed his epic to conform to biblical patriarchal hierarchy while making sure that readers of Paradise Lost acknowledged that the work could be read as a scriptural truth.
Work Cited
Anderson, Douglas. “Unfallen Marriage and the Fallen Imagination in Paradise Lost.” Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900. 26.1, The English Renaissance. (Winter, 1986), pp. 125-144.
Ferry, Anne. “Milton’s Creation of Eve.” Studies in English Literature (Rice). 28.1 (Winter, 1988), p. 113, 20 p.
McColgan, Kristin Pruitt. “Abundant Gifts: Hierarchy and Reciprocity in Paradise Lost.” South Central Review, 11.1 (Spring, 1994), pp. 75-86.
McColley, Diane Kelsey. “Free Will and Obedience in the Separation Scene in Paradise Lost.” Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900, 12.1, The English Renaissance (Winter, 1972), pp. 103-120.
Milton, John. Paradise Lost. The Complete Poetry and Essential Prose of John Milton. Ed. William Kerrigan, John Rumrich, & Stephen Fallon. New York: Modern Library, 2007. Print.
Nyquist, Mary. “The genesis of gendered subjectivity in the divorce tracts and inParadise Lost. Re-membering Milton: Essays on the Texts and Traditions.Ed. Mary Nyquist and Margaret W. Ferguson. New York: Methuen, 1987. 99-127. Print.
Polydorou, Desma. “Gender and Spiritual Equality in Marriage: A Dialogic Reading of Rachel Speght and John Milton.” Milton Quarterly, 35.1 (Mar. 2001), p. 22 11 p.
Thickstun, Margaret O. Fictions of the Feminine. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1988. Print.
Woods, Susanne. “How Free are Milton’s Women?” Milton and the Idea of Woman. Ed. Julia M. Walker. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1988. Print.
No Consideration Of Marriage Can Avoid A Discussion Of Gender Issues
No Consideration Of Marriage Can Avoid A Discussion Of Gender Issues
Contents
TOC o “1-3” h z u Various reasons for marriage PAGEREF _Toc379203577 h 2Marriage in the Victorian age PAGEREF _Toc379203578 h 3Marriage in a modern society PAGEREF _Toc379203579 h 4Same sex marriages PAGEREF _Toc379203580 h 5Marriage in a polygamous setting PAGEREF _Toc379203581 h 6
Marriage is the union between man and woman that is solemnized by members of the community and blessed by God. This is the definition of marriage that the founding fathers are raised by and thus practiced (Lewellen, p. 152). The present definition differs from the former due to the change in cultural aspects of the society. The society continues to change on a daily basis due to the high rate of globalization across the communities. Globalization increases the rate of interaction thus exposing individuals to a different sort of cultural practice. Culture is a way of life; each person belongs to a particular culture that acts as a source of identity (Haviland and Haviland, p. 105). Culture determines the way they approach and perceive different situations. One of the most essential cultural aspects is the right of passage from singlehood to marriage hood. All the cultures around the world embrace this process due to its significance in the sustainability of the society. All cultures view marriage as an essential aspect of life. These same cultures however, have different reasons for marriage. The relationship between two parties involves a set of rules that are ideal for the survival of the marriage. This creates the need for social roles that define the role of both individuals. There are different types of marriages which are brought about by the different cultures in the society. These marriages have different rules that dictate on the way members of the community should behave. Despite the different rules that the marriages have, one factor that they have in common is that they all cannot avoid a discussion on gender issues (Ferraro and Andreatta, p. 341).
The focus of this paper is to present an analysis of gender issues in marriage. There are different types of marriages that are a direct result of the cultures that people belong. The paper seeks to provide an opinion on the notion that states that “No consideration of marriage can avoid a discussion of gender issues”. These arguments will be supported by selected ethnographic illustrations to support the research.
Various reasons for marriage As stated earlier, different cultures have their own definition and perspective of marriage. These cultures dictate on the rules of marriage thus providing the basis upon which marriages are formed. There are different reasons that make a couple choose to get married. One of the reasons people get married is to produce offspring’s. The society requires the reproduction between man and woman for its sustainability. If a society has a low birth rate, it faces the risk of having a diminishing population (Sweetman, p. 351). Any community has to ensure that their population maintains the normal average so that their offspring’s can inherit the community in the future. Another reason that people choose to get married is to have companionship. Companionship is essential for the health an individual. A person is likely to live for a longer time when they are in a relationship compared to a person who is not. This is one of the modern approaches to marriage. Some people opt not to have children due to the fact that it is not priority in their marriage. Some choose to get marriage due to their need to be elevated in their social status. This can be classified as a marriage of convenience. These types of marriages are influenced by political social and economic aspects of a society (Lewellen, p. 122). These marriages were commonly practiced in the ancient times. An example of the modern application of this marriage is the marriage for citizenship.
It has been established that there are various reasons that individuals choose to get married. The formation of a union however, has some principles that the couple has to follow in order for the marriage to work. Social roles are an arrangement that have been put in place from the ancient days to present day. The traditional social roles are defined by the division of labor between male and female. Traditionally, the man is supposed to go into the world and fend for his family. This leaves the woman with the responsibility of child bearing and raising the family. The introduction of education changed the dynamics of the society. As women were exposed to different ideologies and principles, they began to identify with the notion of independence. This disrupted the social arrangement in that women no longer place marriage as the main priority in their life (Dumont and Robert, p.107).
Marriage in the Victorian age The Victorian age is one of the periods that comprises of the mid ancient civilizations. During this time, the cultural norms are traditional in nature. There is a distinct difference in the role of both men and women. Men have the role of being the breadwinner in the family. The rest of the family is thus depending on the male for financial related issues. Women on the other hand are expected to get married and have a family of their own. This is a defining moment in a woman’s life in that it is the only achievement expected of her. The role of a woman consists of bearing children and raising the family (Coontz, p. 128). Women are thus not expected to be ambitious in all areas financial due to the reliance on their husbands. This practice is reflective of the way that children are raised in this society. Children are supposed to behave a certain way so that they can channel their male and female counterparts. Boys are thus expected to concentrate on education in preparation of the future of their family. Girls on the other hand, learn how to be the perfect home makers. This involves learning how to keep a home by taking care of their younger siblings. The different allocation of roles is essential for this type of society in that these cultural aspects are normal to the society. The observing this type of society shows the traditional form of marriage that is practiced in different parts of the world at this period (McLean and Hurd, p. 362).
Marriage in a modern society The modern arrangement of marriage consists of marriages that are practiced in the modern setting of the society. The world is prone to change due to the introduction of different ideologies. One of the areas that have been affected due to change in the societal situations is the institution of marriage. The switch from the agrarian to the industrial revolution changed the way in which the society interacted. During the world wars, men were expected to live their homes so that they could defend their country (Haviland and Haviland p. 245).This left a vacuum in the family in that the female took the role of the breadwinner. Women realized that they can perform the same jobs as their male counterparts. This is a significant part of the country’s history in that the change in social roles influences the argument for equal education. The emphasis of education gave rise to the demand for equal treatment in all aspects of life. The rise of feminism is a significant determinant of the modern family setting (Koktvedgaard, p.278).
Women now have access to the same level of education as men. This means that they do not place priority on starting a family as opposed to the Victorian days. The rise of feminism and the demand for equal treatment between both men and women is a monumental time for women in the current society. This however, affects the natural arrangement of the family setting. One of the most challenging times of the life of a woman is deciding the route to take in terms of career or marriage. This factor affects women more than men in that the majority of the women aspire to have a career and a family. It is difficult to avoid the issue of gender roles. Both the man and the woman are expected to get a job when they complete their studies making it difficult for a couple to raise a family (Hirsch and Wardlow, p. 89). The attempt to create equal opportunities has been established in regard to financial, economic and political areas. The changes however do not dictate the natural order that gives women the opportunity to bear children. A family thus has to discuss gender roles due to the need to balance between work and raising a family. Some mothers have chosen to go back to the traditional ways by choosing family over career. This shows that there is no way around this issue in any marital arrangement (Dumont and Robert, p.147).
Same sex marriages One of the latest forms of marriage that directly results from the change in society is the same sex marriage. Same sex marriage is the marriage between two people who are the same sex. The fight for same sex marriage has reached its peak in that affected persons and their supporters are demanding of more rights. More states are demanding the right to get married to their partners. This privileged is reserved for couples who are heterosexual. The observation of a same sex marriage situation is ideal to indicate that no consideration of marriage can avoid the discussion of gender roles. This is a different condition in that a lesbian couple does not have a male present vice versa (Croll, p. 261). One of the first gender issues that such a couple face the inability to get an offspring amongst each other. If the couple is lucky enough to get a donor, one of the two have to decide who takes the role of the nurturer and the role of the father figure. The couple cannot ignore this situation in that it is natural for a child to demand the presence of both a male and female figure. Another situation that places challenges for the couple in terms of gender roles is the discussion of finances. A couple can choose to both pursue their career and take a back seat for the sake of the children. This type of arrangement indicates the level of masculinity and femininity that is present in both male and female (James and Garrick, p. 452).
Marriage in a polygamous setting Another form of marriage that is present to date is the practice of polygamy. Polygamy is the marriage of one man to more than one woman vice versa. This type of marital arrangement is practiced all over the globe including the United States. Polygamy is different from the rest if the marriages in that more than one relationship are involved. This is a unique example in that it emphasizes the diversity of marriages that exist. Polygamy is not so common in the United States. This makes the society stigmatized when the thought of the ideology is mentioned (Cahill, p. 126).
One of the basic principles of polygamy is the acknowledgment of the supreme head of the family. This person can be male or female depending on the polygamous person in each case. The society is however more exposed to polygamous men as opposed to women. People who practice polygamy recognize the divisions of roles in the family. The man in this case has a lot of authority due to the fact that he is married to more than one person. Most of the cultural practices of polygamous individuals lean towards the traditional marriage setting. The women are expected to procreate so as to increase the number of the members of the family. This thus makes procreation one of the basic principles of polygamy. The gender issues in this case are highly questionable. Women in this type of arrangement are said to be at a disadvantage because of a number of issues (Coontz, p. 98).
One of the issues is the fact that two or more women are forced to share one man vice versa. This limits the level of companionship making the women get less attention compared to man. The man on the other hand experiences all the perks in that he receives an immense amount of attention from each wife. One of the strains of the polygamous marriage to the male is the financial strain that he experiences as a result of maintaining more than one household (Ablow, p. 235).
In conclusion, gender issues account for a significant portion of a human beings life. People are either born male or female in most cases. Both sexes have body parts, genes and hormones that establish how they conduct themselves in the surrounding environment. One of the unions that showcase the gender issues in the society is marriage. Marriage creates a bond between the parties involves in the union. Different marriages face a number of gender related issues depending on the culture that identify themselves. The gender issues vary making some marriages face more issues compared to others. Marriages are traditionally not supposed to be broken. One of the reasons that lead to the increasing number of divorces across the globe are gender related issues. It is thus essential to analyze these issues so as to create an environment that is not ignorant of this matter. Increased awareness of these factors improves the situation in all types of marital unions. This in turn, reduces the rate of divorce that the society has become accustomed to as a result of ignorance in the society.
Works cited
Ablow, Rachel. The Marriage of Minds: Reading Sympathy in the Victorian Marriage Plot. Stanford, Calif: Stanford Univ. Press, 2007. Print.
Cahill, Sean. Same-sex Marriage in the United States: Focus on the Facts. Lanham [u.a.: Lexington Books, 2004. Print.
Coontz, Stephanie. Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy or How Love Conquered Marriage. New York: Viking, 2005. Print.
Croll, Elisabeth. The Politics of Marriage in Contemporary China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Print.
Dumont, Louis, and Robert Parkin. An Introduction to Two Theories of Social Anthropology: Descent Groups and Marriage Alliance. New York [u.a.: Berghahn Books, 2006. Print.
Ferraro, Gary P, and Susan Andreatta. Cultural Anthropology: An Applied Perspective. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2010. Print.
Hirsch, Jennifer S, and Holly Wardlow. Modern Loves: The Anthropology of Romantic Courtship and Companionate Marriage. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan press, 2006. Print.
Haviland, William A, and William A. Haviland. Cultural Anthropology: The Human Challenge. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning, 2011. Print.
Haviland, William A, and William A. Haviland. Evolution and Prehistory: The Human Challenge. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsword, 2008. Print.
Koktvedgaard, Zeitzen M. Polygamy: A Cross-Cultural Analysis. Oxford [etc.: Berg, 2008. Print.
Lewellen, Ted C. The Anthropology of Globalization: Cultural Anthropology Enters the 21st Century. Westport, Conn. [u.a.: Bergin & Garvey, 2002. Print.
McLean, Daniel D, and Amy R. Hurd. Kraus’ Recreation and Leisure in Modern Society. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2011. Print.
Meade, Teresa A, and Merry E. Wiesner-Hanks. A Companion to Gender History. Malden [u.a.: Blackwell, 2006. Print.
Peoples, James G, and Garrick A. Bailey. Humanity: An Introduction to Cultural Anthropology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2012. Print.
Sweetman, Caroline. Gender, Development and Marriage. Oxford: Oxfam GB, 2003. Print.