Recent orders
Parenting Styles
English
Students Name
Institution of Affiliation
Date
Parenting Styles
Parenting styles refer to the combination of various strategies used by parents to raise the children. According to Diane Baumrind, there are four parenting styles to which parents are grouped, and this includes the authoritative parent, permissive or indulgent, the uninvolved or neglecting parent and the authoritarian parent (Steinberg, Laurence, and Nancy). The type of parenting affects the performance as well as the discipline of the children. It is important to adopt the best parenting style so that parents can influence a healthy growth and development of their children as they interact. Each of the parenting styles takes a different approach in raising children.
The authoritarian parent
The authoritarian parents have the perception that children should do as they are asked to and therefore should follow their parent’s rules without exception (Chao). These kind of parents are famous due to their saying the ‘Because I said so’ in the instances to which the child questions their parents the reason behind following the rule. The parents in this style aren’t open either are they interested in any negotiations as their main focus is the obedience of their children. The authoritarian parents do not allow their children to make decisions for any challenge or problem they face but instead, they make the rules and enforce the consequences with little regard to the opinion of their children. The parents in this category may use punishments to instill discipline to their children, and thus they invest in making the children feel sorry for their mistakes rather than teaching their children to make better choices.
Children who are brought up by the parents who adopt this style tend to follow the rules much on time as they are brought up by strict parents. The children brought up with this style of parenting have a higher risk of developing self-esteem problems because their opinions are not valued since they were young. They may also be aggressive or hostile as they spend much of their time focusing on anger to which they feel on their parents rather than thinking about their future. As a result of being brought up by strict parents, the children in this category end up becoming good liars to evade punishment from their parents.
Authoritative Parenting
The authoritative parents make rules for their parents, but they also consider the opinions of their children (Baumrind). The parents validate their children’s emotions while at the same time making it clear that they are in charge of everything despite providing a room for the children’s opinion. The authoritative parents invest most of their time and energy in instilling discipline to their children. The reason is to prevent behavioral problems before they arise. The parents using the authoritative style of parenting are considered to use positive discipline strategies to their children to reinforce a behavior. Among the positive discipline, plans include the praise and reward systems that act as a motivation to the children to maintain the required behavior.
According to research, the children who are brought up by parents who use the authoritative style of parenting are most likely to be responsible adults in the future and to whose the self-esteem is raised making them feel comfortable in the expression of their opinions. The children who are raised with the authoritative discipline are often happy and successful in future, they are also more likely to be better decision makers and evaluating the risks. The children are also expected to make good leaders as they possess the qualities of a good leader such as ethical decision makers, discipline, timekeepers and at the same time have a higher confidence and self-esteem level as they were encouraged by their parents to provide opinions.
Permissive Parenting
Permissive parents are lenient to their children and often avail during the cases of a serious problem (Watson). The parents are quite forgiving, and they might give privileges if the child begs for them. The permissive parents are seen to take the role of a being more of a friend than being a parent and encourage the children to inform them about their issues. Besides, the parents on this category don’t put much effort into discouraging lousy behavior or bad choices. Children brought up by parents who are permissive are more likely to struggle in academics, they also exhibit behavioral problems as they do not appreciate the presence of rules and authority. The children may suffer low esteem as well as report cases of sadness. The children are also at a higher risk of obtaining lifestyle diseases such as obesity as their parents don’t struggle to limit the kind of food being taken.
Neglecting or Uninvolved Parenting
The uninvolved parents have little knowledge about the deeds of their children as they are not concerned about the welfare of their children (Hildyard, Kathryn and David). In this type of parenting, there tend to be few rules for the children, and the children may receive less guidance from their parents, less nurturing as well as reduced parenting attention. The parents expect their children to raise themselves with little or no assistance coming from them. The parents do not devote much time or even their energy into meeting their children needs as they are always neglectful of their responsibilities although it is not always intentional as at times they lack the knowledge about child development. At times, they may be overwhelmed with other problems such as work and other responsibilities that separate them from their children only availing themselves at the times of availability of which it is rare. The children brought up by uninvolved parents are likely to have self-esteem issues, and they perform poorly in school. The kids are also prone to indiscipline as their parents have no time correcting theory behaviors.
Various parenting styles instill different personalities to the children during growth and development. Children who are given opportunities to express their opinions with their parents have higher chances of being disciplined in the sense that their parents instill correctional measures in the case of in case the child goes against the set rules. For the uninvolved parents, the children may suffer lack of discipline, and they may be exposed to lifestyle problems as their parents have no control over their lives. Therefore parenting styles play a vital role in the growth and development of children.
Work Cited
Baumrind, Diana. “Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior.” Child development (1966): 887-907.
Chao, Ruth K. “Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting style: Understanding Chinese parenting through the cultural notion of training.” Child development 65.4 (1994): 1111-1119.
Hildyard, Kathryn L., and David A. Wolfe. “Child neglect: developmental issues and outcomes☆.” Child abuse & neglect26.6-7 (2002): 679-695.
Steinberg, Laurence, and Nancy Darling. “Parenting style as context: An integrative model.” Interpersonal Development. Routledge, 2017. 161-170.
Watson, Goodwin. “Some personality differences in children related to strict or permissive parental discipline.” The Journal of Psychology 44.1 (1957): 227-249.
The Black Table is still There
English
Students Name
Institution of Affiliation
Course Title
Date
The Black Table is still There
In the book ‘The Black Table is still There’, Lawrence Otis Graham who is the author of the book and a graduate from the Harvard law school and Princeton University goes back to his mainly white junior high school to pay a visit. During his visit, Graham comes by something that he previously thought that he could see it again after so many years of being to the school as he had forgotten it during his adulthood days. In the cafeteria of his white primary school lay a peculiar lunch table, making Graham flashback to his olden days of childhood explaining why the black table affected him.
Graham begins the flashback by stating that most of the time that he was the only boy in most of the activities that he attended that included like in his high school tennis team, the easting club as well as the summer music camps. Despite attending all the gaming and competitions activities at his school, he was not the only black American in his school. Graham states that there was a scenario that has made him startled most during his school days. He narrates that the existed a black table during lunchtime, the black table was a group of African American teenagers that could come as a group sitting at one of the tables in the cafeteria. Graham narrates that he would never sit at that table no matter whom they walked into the cafeteria as he feared to lose his white friends by siting with the black individuals, as he claims that he could be making an anti-white racist statement.
Graham showed his resentment to the all-black lunch table and believed that the black kids were the reason as to why other children did not mix more. I tend to agree with him in this statement as people tend to view teenagers who separate themselves into individual groups as being anti-social people and that they don’t like mixing with other groups. Lawrence blames the black kids for being the barrier of integration in the school and all his little world. Graham, however, states that he was wrong as, during the same time, there were at least two tables of athletes that included an Italian table a Jewish boys table and a Jewish girls table. Where he usually sat, a table of kids who often were onto heavy metal music and a smoking pot, a table belonging to the middle-class Irish kids. Here, Grahams asks “weren’t this table just as segregationist as the black table?’ In other words, Graham realized that he was wrong, and he realized this because yes there existed an all-black table at his high school, but there was also a table where all the athletes could sit, all the Italians could sit, and the Jewish girls and boys could sit. The African American teens sitting in the all-black table were therefore not isolating themselves. They were imitating what everyone else was doing, sitting together with their kinds of friends and this concludes that Graham was wrong in his judgments and that he continues to admit that he was assuming the opposite of what was happening.
Graham would not be the only individual who could be associated with the wrong judgments as to some extents the inference is always correct. I think it is clear that we tend to separate ourselves and that it is natural that this still remains and exist in our society today even though we don’t realize it as it is done unintentionally. There are a few factors that try to explain why we tend to segregate ourselves. One of these reasons is that without our recognition, we tend to stay and associate with people to whom we own the same race, and country and this is because we feel that we tend to share the same interests and we feel that we go so much in common. The habit goes on every day without the people realizing it, happening in our schools and amongst our neighborhoods. It is not perplexing to find that some of the communities are divided into the same ethnicity.
We feel that just because we share the same culture and beliefs, we can relate with one another more easily and comfortably with people to whom we associate with than to those whom we don’t share anything in common. Just because someone else is of a different nationality and religion, we tend not to associate with them as much. This, however, does not have the implication that we can never be a diverse group of people but because of the force of the habit to not only reside with our nationality and religion but even in our daily activities and this is especially among the younger people in schools such as high school. The kids on a sports team or some other activities that tend to bring people together often is characterized by the habit of association with people from the same region and kind. The reason is therefore quite clear that all the associations tend to share some common interest proving Graham wrong as he comes to realize this issue much later.
Despite being in the association, racial segregation has been significant part of the current and the previous generations. Racial discrimination tends to have dominated in the past years where it was publicly known that being black or white meant that you could stick to your lanes. The issue of racial segregation was much evident in the American society, and this as well can give an inference of the origin of the all-black lunch table that existed in Graham’s high school. It can be evident that the blacks were exposed to some discrimination by the whites during lunchtime and that is the main reason that they decided to have a place of their own by assembling and sharing their moments together.
High schools and colleges are among the public institutions to which racism is common, and it wouldn’t come as a surprise that a certain group of people may prefer to stick together especially if they are the minority group. The reason as to why they will seclude themselves is to avoid unnecessary victimizations from the majority groups. To further clarify our doubts, we tend to see the Jewish and the Italians having separate tables as well alongside the all-black lunch table during athletics and other sporting activities. Majority of the people from other regions may not be at ease in socializing with people to whom they don’t relate especially in language and colour. Therefore it is very difficult to find a Jewish associating with a black at the first time while there are others of their kind. The trend has however been reducing, but still, the aspect of the black table amidst of the other tables has continued to be evidenced in the present generation. The main reason behind is due to the enhancement of the rich culture and traditions of the people. The individuals tend to carry it along with them; this is because for example during lunchtime a black person may not do the same practices like the whites and therefore may opt to associate with the blacks to whom they tend to share a similar culture.
Work Cited
Graham, Lawrence Otis. “The Black Table I Still There.” Coming of Age: Literature About Youth and Adolescence: 1999-43.
Literary analysis essays
English
Prof. Shaw
Students Name
Institution of Affiliation
ENG 120: Current Themes: Apocalyptic Fiction
Date
Literary analysis essays
Station eleven is an audacious, darkly glittering novel (Mandel, 2016) that is about art, ambitions and fame that is set in the eerie days of civilization collapse, from the author of the three highly acclaimed previous novels. The novel is written by Emily St. John Mandel. On one snowy night of a famous Hollywood actor slumps over and dies on the stage during the production of the film king Lear. Some hours later, the world as it is known begins to dissolve. Moving back and forth in the time from the actors early days of the film star to fifteen years in the future, when a theatre troupe that is known as the travelling Symphony roams the wasteland of what remains this suspenseful, spellbinding, elegiac novel charts the strange twists of the fate which connects five people that is the actor, the actors first wife, the man who tried to save him, a young actress and his oldest friend with the travelling symphony, caught in the crosshairs of a dangerous self-proclaimed prophet. Sometimes terrifying and sometimes tender, Station Eleven tells a story about the relationships that sustains us, the ephemeral nature of fame as well as the beauty of the world as we get to know it. The novel Station Eleven is mostly dominated by six major characters to whom all are connected to one another as well as the secondary characters.
Arthur Leander, a famous actor is the first to whom we are introduced to in the novel. The character can be described as pretentious as well as self-absorbed. Throughout the novel, he was married to three women and he is always unfaithful to them and this could be caused by his self-absorption character as he tends to care more about himself rather than the women to whom he is engaged to as his wives. Arthur is connected to almost all the characters in the novel.
Arthur is an extremely successful actor who dies of a heart attack on stage the night of the Georgia Flu outbreak (Byrd, 2017). During the production, Arthur was a mentor to Kirsten who witnessed his death. The novel describes his early days struggling in Toronto with his friend Clark Thompson and his rise to fame and celebrity in the Hollywood where Arthur marries and divorces thrice. Arthur’s first wife was known as Miranda Carroll who happens to originate from the same island as Arthur. The second wife was Elizabeth Colton, she is the mother to Arthurs’ child Tyler. The third wife goes by the name Lydia Marks. Towards the end of his life, Arthur comes to regret his actions and stops valuing his possessions. During the weeks before his death, Arthur decides to move to Israel and discard his older life so that he could be closer to his son. Of course, the Georgia flu could have prevented this from happening if he hadn’t died of heart attack.
In the novella Station Eleven, Arthur Leander is depicted as a symbol of continuity. In her critically acclaimed post-apocalyptic novel, Station Eleven, the author Emily St. John Mandel undeniably exerts her literary prowess as if exemplified in the many parallelisms that she draws between her work and that of such contemporary pieces as those of William Shakespeare ‘King Lear’. Out of the many faculties to which Mandel uses to illustrate the similarities, the most substantial can be obtained in the characterization of Arthur Leander, to which Mandel personifies the overarching theme found in Shakespeare’s playwright which is that of the conceptualization of the great chain of being.
Popularized by the Greeks, through both Plotinus and Plato, the ideology argued that everything in the known multiverse had its own place in a divinely composited hierarchical chain that was preordained by God for the intended purpose of creating order and connectivity among all the things, with a strong emphasis placed on the continuity and correspondence linking all the things. In the case of King Lear, the notion was demonstrated in the way in which the foolish king connected all of his characters and events within the drama and ultimately in the way that his actions lead to the disorder amongst his kingdom. In a similar case, Mandel’s plot driven novel follows in the Shakespeare’s footsteps in the many relationships that manifest between the character and the events through their association with the deceased Arthur Leander. The most obvious demonstrations of this is found in the protagonist Kirsten Raymond and her fascination with collecting Arthur Leander memorabilia in the collapsed society in which she finds herself apart of as well as in in the various contact zones that are central to the main conflict of the book, all of which bond together through some affiliation with his character. With everything being kept into consideration, Arthur Leander is one of the most important characters in Station Eleven (Mandel 2016). The fact being substantiated in the way that Mandel leverages his characters as a means to interconnect the different characters, contact zones and with them, the events in the novel and thus personifying the great chain of being.
One of the most brilliant affirmations of how Mandel intertwines all the characters within the novel through the main character Arthur Leander, is found in the peculiar characteristic that is demonstrated by Kirsten Raymond. On a microscopic level, the behavior demonstrated by Kirsten serves as a means to cope with the new reality that she found herself apart. However on a larger scale, the incident acts her with the way the society use to be at a time that Arthur Leander was alive and everyone who was associated with him when he was alive. The fact is further bolstered in the Station Eleven comic strips that are her higher prized possessions. The artefacts created by Miranda, Arthur’s first wife unifies Kirsten to Arthur and it is through him that his wives as well as his child Tyler and in a domino effect like manner, the various groups within the work such as the travelling symphony, the people at St. Deborah by the water and the group found at the museum of civilization.
Even more profoundly, through employing the stagnant character, Jeevan Chaudhary, a journalist who followed Arthur Leander (Mandel 2016), there are very serious implications that he took the photographs in the magazines she clings so much passionately to, that of the stories central characters. There is unquestionably both a correspondence and a continuity between all characters in Mandel’s work of all that is depicted in the simple action of Arthur giving a small child a cartoon strip to which the novel obtains its name from. While Kirsten’s fixation on Arthur Leander memorabilia provides ample evidence as to how Leander’s character acts to personify the great chain of being, the amalgamation between contact zones and events, namely found in the museum of civilization that was previously identified as Tavern city airport and the central conflict at St. Deborah by the water, through his character, further strengthens the stipulation.
In her article, “Arts of the Contact Zone,” Mary Louis pretty defines a contact zone as a social space where cultures meet, clash and grapple with each other often in the context of highly asymmetrical relations of power. In regard to Mandel’s novel, Station Eleven, the two major contact zones within the work occur at the museum of civilization, immediately after the society’s collapse and at St. Deborah by the water. Throughout her work, Mandel beautifully encapsulated the notion as it is seen in Kirsten’s fascination with Arthur Leander memorabilia and the ways she so effortlessly interconnected the different contact zones and even inside her works. That being said upon an in-depth reading of Station Eleven one can’t help but reflect on the many ways that we all seem united with one another in the overall fabric of humanity and thus showcasing as to why it is difficult to survive alone.
The reason as to why Mandel has used so many characters is that she could achieve the continuity that evident in the whole novel. Arthur Leander, being the main actor in the novel is connected with almost all the players and thus ensuring that there is continuity within her story. The large cast of the characters in the novel Station Eleven helps the author achieve and communicate her intended message to the audience through giving each of the characters a unique but a correlated character to what is being addressed. The main issue of that Mandel brings out by introducing a character who has many wives is to indicate how people can’t be such independent on their own and need a companion to make their lives better. In order for the mankind to ensure their continuity, it is prompted that they get married to have kids an issue that is so much open in the novel of continuity. In addition however, the issue of divorce is present in the novel by Arthur Leander who divorces his first wife an indication of how life isn’t a smooth journey and that proper choices need to be made for a successful life. It’s also evident that no matter how one is successful, he or she is full of fouls that make their lives to get based on regrets.
Work Cited
Mandel, Emily St John. Station eleven. Éditions Rivages, 2016.
Byrd, Merry. “Siblings and Survivors: The Post-Apocalyptic Worlds in Edan Lepucki’s California and Emily St. John Mandel’s Station Eleven.” Femspec 17.2 (2017): 71.