Gun Control Essay Example for Free

Gun Control Essay Gun control has been a debatable issue for all times. This essay aims to put forward an argument against gun control. The essay asserts that prevalence of gun control should not be a part of the society. Society should be against gun control because people should be able to protect themselves, the crime rate would decrease, and people have the right to bear arms. Discussion The controversy regarding the gun control is neither a new one nor particular to United States. Majority of the gun control laws make no demarcation between the citizens who are law breakers and those who are law abiding. Gun control laws simply entail that anyone who possess a gun is likely to be a law breaker, which is merely not a case (Reynolds Caruth, pp. 01). The purpose behind the gun control and gun crime laws is to avert the criminals from acquiring guns and using the guns they had acquired. However, the number of armed crimes as well as criminals has amplified during the time when gun control laws have thrived. It appears as if the actual results of gun control have not been the projected ones (Reynolds Caruth, pp. 02). Gun control laws restricts the ordinary citizens from possessing a gun, which implies that at the time of a criminal attack or a robbery, the citizen will not be likely to defend him or herself. The self defense survey conducted by Dr. Gary Kleeck shows that around 2. 1 million times, guns are used for self defense purpose in a year (Krouse, pp. 13). A gun control law will restrain the people from protecting themselves in case of a violent crime attack. This will enable the criminals to be more powerful and confident while attacking people as people would not be armed. For instance pizza delivery boys keep guns to prevent themselves from being robbed. Thus, society should be against gun control because people have a right to protect and defend themselves. Imposing gun control laws do not reduce crimes. However, guns in the hands of those citizens who are law abiding and physically less strong than the criminals, are the best preventions for the crimes (Reynolds Caruth, pp. 02). Criminals are provoked by self-protection and guns can thus be a disincentive. A majority of convicted American criminals have reported that they fear from attacking the victims who are armed. Their fear of encountering armed victims surpasses their fear of being caught by police (Lott, pp. 05). Robbers do not attempt to break into houses after midnight because of the probability of being shot. Thus, society should be against gun control because crimes will decrease. Keeping guns and using them for self defense is a right of the citizens as laid by the constitution. The constitution wants its citizens to possess guns in order to protect and defend themselves from the criminals or the despotism of their own government. Other than the constitutional right, self defense by keeping guns is also an inherent basic human right of the people (Reynolds Caruth, pp. 27-29). Therefore, society should be against gun control as people have a right to bear arms. Conclusion Most of the criminals acquire guns from illegal sources. Gun control laws; therefore, are not able to restrict criminals. They only restrain law abiding citizens from possessing guns which increases the crime violence; therefore, society should be against gun control because people should be able to protect themselves, the crime rate would decrease, and people have the right to bear arms.

Applied Ethics Essay Example for Free

Applied Ethics Essay A False promise means â€Å"a promise that is made with no intention of carrying it out and esp. that is made with intent to deceive or defraud†. Nowadays, making false promises has become ubiquitous in our daily life. Is it a right action or not? Based on Kantian ethic and Utilitarianism, there are different views in making a false promise. Utilitarians’ view in making a false promise For Utilitarianism, it looks at the consequence of an action for all those people affected by the action. If the overall balance of happiness over unhappiness is its consequence, the action is right; unhappiness over happiness, it is wrong.(Chan Chun Fai’ s notes, Moral Theories, p.2) Also, the principle of utility applied to it is generally expressed as â€Å"Always act to produce greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. â€Å" (Chan Chun Fai’s Power Point) For example, Betty has made a false promise to Peter. She borrowed some money from Tom as to travel to Taiwan with her friends and promised him that she would return money to him after one week. So, Tom was glad to lean her money. Betty made a false promise to have enough money travelling with their friends and her friends were so thrilled about that although Tom would feel depressed about it. However, this action produces greatest happiness for the greatest number of people that Betty and her friends felt happy while only Tom felt unhappy. Therefore, it is considered as a right thing to do. But for rule-utilitarianism (RU), it is treated as a wrong action because RU looks at the consequence of a rule and the principle of utility is applied to a rule. Also, if everyone following the rule could produce good consequence, then we should abide by that rule—a right rule. (Chan Chun Fai’s Power Point) In this situation, if everyone made false promises, people would stop believing promises and each other. As this action result in bad consequence, it is not a right action in the concept of rule- utilitarianism. Kantians’ view in making a false promise Kant’s deontology is not about consequence and happiness. It is about to act with a good will (which is an absolute good) is to act out of duty; to act out of duty is to act with moral law. (Chan Chun Fai’s notes, Moral Theories—Kant’s deontology P.1) If we do things just for our desires or feelings, it is not considered as a truly moral action. For example, Peter does some social services only because it benefits him to get into university. In this case, as his social services are based on his desires, they are not done out of duty. So, these actions are not treated as moral actions. Of course, in Betty’s case, she made a false promise to Tom and she acted without a good will. Also, she made a false promise to get what she wants has indicated that she did this only for her desires. Therefore, making a false promise is not a moral action in Kantians’ view. Besides, there is a principle of morality in Kant’s deontology called â€Å"Categorical Imperative†. It is the cardinal principle of morality. â€Å"A categorical imperative is unconditional and independent of any circumstances, goals, or desires.† (Chan Chun Fai’s notes, Moral Theories—Kant’s deontology, P.2) Kant expressed this idea in two formulations called â€Å"universal law† and â€Å"the end in itself†. Base on this two formulas, we can judge an action whether it is right. Refer to the formula of universal law, we need to act only on that maxim whereby we can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. In general, if it is right for you to do something, then it is right for anyone in similar situation to do the same thing and you are required to be consistent—do not make exceptions for anyone, including yourself. Obviously, making a false promise cannot be a universal law as it is impossible for everyone to do the same or for you to will that everyone acts as you do. In fact, most of people must be unwilling to be made a false promise. As making false promises has exception that no one is willing for everyone to follow this rule, it cannot be a universal law. Due to this, it is not a right action. According to â€Å"the end in itself†, it is stated â€Å"Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means but always at the same time as an end.† (Chan Chun Fai’s notes, Moral Theories, P.4) That means, we need to treat all rational humans as ends, never merely as a means to an end. Additionally, Kant stated that â€Å"Every man is to be respected as an absolute end in itself; and it is a crime against the dignity that belongs to him as a human being to use him as a mere means for some external purpose.†Hence, it is morally wrong for Betty to make a false promise to him that uses Tom merely as a means to achieve her ends because Tom also has ends of his own. Therefore, making false promises is a wrong action in Kantian’s view as performing this action doesn’t not respect others and use others merely as a means. My point of view over Utilitarianism and Kantian ethics In my opinion, Kantian ethics is better than Utilitarianism as doing things with Kant’s Deontology can enhance harmony in our community. Say, if we do social services out of duty, not of desires or feelings, such kind of behaviors can last longer. If we do social work base on the concept of utilitarianism in order to get some benefits or to satisfy ourselves, we will stop doing social services sooner or later once we have been satisfied. In addition, Kant’s deontology advocates respect of others while utilitarianism is more aggressive and selfish. If everyone does things with the concept of utilitarianism, it can be harmful to our society as all of us only think about ourselves instead of being considerate to others. Conclusion In an aspect of utilitarianism, if making a false promise can produce greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, it is a right action while it is a wrong thing to do in rule-utilitarianism as it result in bad consequence. Moreover, making false promises is with a bad will and for people’s desires that it is not a right thing to do in Kantians’ view as it uses others merely as a means and it will not be a universal law. Personally, I think Kantian’s ethics is more ideal than utilitarianism because of social harmony.

Bartleby the Scrivener Life in the Iron Mills

Bartleby the Scrivener Life in the Iron Mills English Exam – II Bartleby the Scrivener Life in the Iron Mills The two books up for analysis are Herman Melville’s Bartleby the Scrivener and Life in the Iron Mills by Rebecca Harding Davis. Neither work can be called a Novella, as both are short stories. Explicit similarities and differences highlight the superficial aspect of both stories. The more implicit ones underline the actual meat of the stories. Both works were produced at around the same period of the late 19Th century, and both feature plots both engrossing, yet unconventional, but contemporary (in the case of Bartleby, the Scrivener). In order to write a comparative analysis, required are comparisons between Bartleby and Hugh as workers, their working conditions in their respective jobs, and the moral responsibility of other characters in the stories towards the respective two protagonists. To begin with, the setting of both the stories plays an important part in explaining the job and the working conditions each protagonist faces. Herman Melville’s story takes place in the bustling New York City, which is still up-and-coming during the 19th century.[1] The setting in Life in the Iron Mills was influenced by the mills nearby in Wheeling, Virginia on the Ohio River during the factory world. Another major influence is the ongoing Industrial Revolution.[2] Life in the Iron Mills tells us the story about Hugh Wolfe, a young labourer in the Iron Mills of Wheeling.[3] Hugh is a poor Welsh descendent who turns pig iron into wrought iron by a process called puddling.[4] Along with several other labourers, that’s his main job there. But, Hugh is also highly gifted in the art of sculpting, and in his spare time, sculpts a woman out of Korl, the refuse from iron smelting. His cousin, Deborah-who loves him dearly-brings him dinner every day, forsaking her own meal. She is a hunchback, and the other workers make fun of her relationship with Hugh. Hugh’s working conditions weren’t exactly too habitable. As was the ‘custom’ during the Industrial revolution, immigrants working in factories and warehouses would be exploited by the owners. Low paying jobs, horrible living conditions just contributed to their misery. Hugh’s life in the Iron mills was no different. He had to toil day in and day out, with barely any time to even eat. In all the ‘darkness’ surrounding his life, the only source of ‘light’ was his Korl figure, which distinguished itself from his other creation, the crude, dark Iron from the smelter. Bartleby’s world is New York City circa 1860. And in utter contrast, though, during around the same time as Life in the Iron Mills, he works for a lawyer on the booming Wall Street of Manhattan. The difference between Bartleby’s and Hugh’s working conditions is so substantial, that, at first look, it’s almost ludicrous how Bartleby refuses to do a lot of work tasked to him, in spite of his grade-A working conditions. Bartleby is a scrivener, a copier, who, at first completes his task with utmost dedication. His eating habits are peculiar. He just eats snacks-specifically Ginger-nut cakes- and skips dinner and lunch altogether. His polite refusal to do a small task intrigues the lawyer, and he gradually discovers that Bartleby’s work rate diminishes to the point where he literally doesn’t do any work, and just sits around the lawyer’s office. One point which can be made exclusively for the comparison of both stories is the American Dream. Though it’s not the main theme in either of the books, I can’t help but define Hugh’s actions to be solely for the purpose of achieving the American dream, to be wealthy, to make a name for himself. As for Bartleby, he works in the city of endless opportunities – New York. It’s Ironic that the American dream is closer within his grasp than it is in the case of Hugh in the Iron Mills, and yet he does naught about it. But then again, that can be explained too, after the revelations at the end of the book. Both are completely different kinds of workers. Hugh, a hard-working yet unsatisfied one, whereas, Bartleby a mentally affected one, which makes his work sloppy as time passes. Endings of both stories are quite similar. Both end on a morose note, and that’s where a major point of comparison comes into light. Bartleby, due to being a liability on the author is arrested and jailed. The lawyer isn’t exactly too excited to have put him behind bars, but he did it anyway to protect his business. At the end of the story, the lawyer visits Bartleby in jail for the second time, only to find him dead. One can perceive his death to be induced by the lawyer’s actions, and the same can be said about Hugh Wolfe. Deborah steals a wealthy man’s wallet while he is visiting the Iron mills and hands it over to Hugh. Not knowing what to do with it, he eventually succumbs in his greed for money. When the man finds out about the theft, he has Hugh arrested and jailed. This causes Hugh to slash his wrist one day, and commit suicide. In my personal opinion, the deaths of the protagonists in both stories would not be directly, and intently because of the actions of other character. And as such, I would believe that Hugh’s death was caused by his own greed, or selfishness. Although Deborah was the one who stole the money, Hugh had a choice to either take it, or refuse. He took the check, and his dream of having a better life, of being in a better social standing caused his greed to get the better of him. Considering that a large sum of money was stolen, Mitchell obviously wouldn’t allow that to go unnoticed and unpunished. His moral obligation towards Hugh is little, or none. It is only fair that he wished to see Hugh punished for the theft of his money. Though, if only he would have known that Deborah was the one who stole the check, then probably he would have been wrathful towards her instead of Hugh. The only error Mitchell committed was the misdirection of his finger. Maybe, the story would have ended differently if the theft would have been thoroughly investigated. In the case of Bartleby, I would think that the lawyer was not responsible for his death. As the story tells us, Bartleby had started to become a burden on the lawyer. He spent all of his time, quite literally too, in the lawyer’s office doing nothing. His customers remarked upon that, and the lawyer realised that Bartleby was bad for business. And that is only fair of him. He has no moral obligation towards prioritizing Bartleby’s well-being instead of his business. He shifted his office, but the workers still complained of Bartleby, and finally he had to-albeit reluctantly-turn him in to the police. Bartleby died in the jail. The lawyer hears a rumour about Bartleby having worked in a dead letter office, and maybe Bartleby was mentally affected due to the extremely sad nature of his work there. And maybe that does justify his actions in the lawyer’s office, but at the end of the day, the lawyer’s business was at stake. I would believe that the lawyer was in no way morally responsible for Bartleby’s death. To analyse, are three literary works – The narrative of Henry David Thoreau, Frederick Douglass and the Scarlet Letter. All three works highlight their protagonists in various ways, using different themes and settings. They were written in around the same time period as well, the late 1840s and 50s. The main protagonists have an unconventional livelihood for some part of their life, and this is most often reflected in their stories. In the case of Frederick Douglass and Henry Thoreau, this unconventional life of theirs forms the basis for their narratives. After reading all three books, the readers can make out the fact that all three protagonists disagree with some aspects of their society, and it’s this disagreement that forms the basis for this analysis. Henry Thoreau is repulsed by the materialism in the society then, and Douglass strongly disagrees with slavery and its social, economic and moral effects, whereas, Hester Prynne is shunned, or deemed as an outcast by the society. This is the major similarity between all three protagonists Isolation from conventional society. Frederick Douglass’s narrative is set in the America of the early 19th century. Before and during the American civil war, when slavery was rampant the country. Douglass was probably the son of Captain Anthony, a white slave owner, who was also his first owner. Throughout his life as a slave Douglass is looked down upon as inhumanely as possible by his white slave masters. He is inhumanely treated, beaten, and deprived of the basic necessities in life. From his very birth, he is labelled as a ‘slave’, throughout a long period of his life, he remains one. He is a unique character in his story, as he doesn’t fit in the regular description of both the social standings at that time – The slaved blacks, and the free citizens. He is not free only in his mind, and not physically. And he takes an interest in reading and writing, after he learns from Sophia Auld. He takes it upon himself to continue reading and writing after Sophia cruelly stops teaching him. Most slaves weren’t literate then, and that’s what set him apart from them. The constant mistreatment he suffers sets off a spark in him, a spark of deep hatred against slavery, it leads him to devise plans to escape, to find his way to more liberal parts of the country. He creates his own opportunities. Opportunities to create, and increase awareness about anti-slavery. He becomes an eloquent writer and orator, recording his life in his narrative, his beliefs and his thoughts about the evils prevalent in the society. Douglass, exercising his new-found skill becomes actively involved in the abolitionist movement, doing what his deepest wish was to. When comparing Douglass to Hester Prynne and Thoreau, the readers can notices that there is no physical restriction applied to the latter two protagonists. It’s rather social and psychological. But like Douglass, Hester Prynne too does not fit in the society. She married an elderly man in England who sent her to America, where she lived in a puritan settlement in Boston. The reason why she is held like an outcast in the society is because she had an affair with a young minister – Arthur Dimmesdale, and had a child out of wedlock. The society frowned upon this incidence and Hester Prynne was an outcast, who was punished for her sin and secrecy. She had to wear a Scarlet coloured letter ‘A’ on her breast. It was a symbol of adultery, one which she bore throughout her time in the society. She was never a regular citizen, and lived her life in isolation in small cottage with her daughter Pearl. When her husband surfaced in the puritan society, he was malevolent towards her former lover Dimmesdale, which eventually caused them to plan to flee to Europe and settle there as family. But before they could do so, Dimmesdale kills himself due to the anguish caused by Chillingworth (who wanted revenge against him).[5] Hester and Pearl do escape the society, but only after Chillingworth’s death a year later. As a result of her experiences in the puritan society, she becomes a kind and compassionate figure, caring the poor and wounded. Her charity work eventually makes her a mother-figure in the society, and when she returns back to Boston from Europe, the scarlet letter which she still wears is no longer a sign of shame. Like Douglass, Hester contemplated about the evils present in the society, the treatment of women in general, and the society’s outlook towards her. She made a better person out of herself as a result, and forged a better future for herself and her daughter just like Douglass did. Henry David Thoreau lives an isolated life for two years. Similar to Hester Prynne, he is fairly cut off from civilization in Walden Pond, except for the occasional visitors (and the fact that concord is of walking distance). The reason why Thoreau went to live in this recluse of his is because he wanted to experience more of his life. Unlike, Douglass and Hester Prynne, his isolation wasn’t inflicted on him due to societal norms and conventions. He chose to live in isolation to find a new side of the society. Henry’s beliefs were mostly critical towards the then modern society. The materialism present in the society thoroughly irked him, and he considered tangible assets and money to be the evils in the society. He believed that every material muse was a burden for the society and that a life in recluse was the purest form of contact with the nature. His almost biased criticism was not only limited to money and wealth, but also to technology. The main similarity between the three protagonists is their shared beliefs towards the societal ills. Although, their issues are different, they point towards a better version of a society in their mind.

Comparing the Brothers Antigone and Ismene in Antigone :: Sophocles

The personalities of the two sisters, Antigone and Ismene, are as different from one another as night and day. Antigone acts as a free spirit, a defiant individual, while Ismene is content to recognize her limitations as a woman in a male dominated society. In the Greek tragedy†Antigone", by Sophocles, Antigone learns that King Creon has refused to give a proper burial for the slain Polyneices, brother of Ismene and Antigone. Infuriated by this, Antigone shares the tragic news with Ismene. From her first response, "No I, haven’t heard a word"(13). Ismene reveals her passivity and helplessness in the light of Creon's decree. Thus, from the start, Ismene is characterized as traditionally "feminine", a helpless woman that pays no mind to political affairs. Doubting the wisdom of her sisters plan to break the law and bury Polyneices, Ismene argues: â€Å"Remember we are women, not born to contend with men .† (75) Once again Ismene's words clearly state her weak, feminine character and helplessness within her own dimensions. Antigone, not happy with her sisters response chides her sister for not participating in her crime and for her passivity, saying, â€Å"Don’t fear for me. Set your own life in order"(97) . For Antigone, no law could stand in the way of her strong consideration of her brother's spirit, not even the punishment of an early death. Ismene is more practical, knowing the task is impossible, she feels the situation to be hopeless. It is a wonder, which of the two sisters are really guilty of these chronic charges. Of course, Antigone acted so quickly, and failed to take the advice of the moderate sister, Ismene. Instead, going against Creon's words, Antigone rashly goes ahead and breaks the law. Antigone is a fool, she must learn that such defiance, even when justified, is not conductive to longevity. Although Antigone is foolish, she is also courageous and motivated by her morals. Proper burial of the dead was, according to the Greeks, prerequisite for the soul’s entrance into a permanent home. Therefore, perhaps Ismene is also foolish for her quick refusal to help Antigone perform the duty of Polyneices proper burial. Ismene definitely seems hasty in her acceptance of personal weakness. Perhaps in some way, both sisters are guilty of the same tragic sins. Perhaps it is this rashness, more subdued in Ismene's case that leads both sisters to their own destruction.

Double Jeopardy Summary :: essays research papers

In the movie, Double Jeopardy, Libby Parsons, played by Ashley Judd, and her husband Nick, Bruce Greenwood, go out on a weekend sailboat trip. During the night, Libby wakes up finding herself alone and covered in blood. As she gets up to search for her husband, all she finds is more blood all over the boat and a bloody knife on deck. As the investigation is underway, Libby is charged with her husband’s murder. It is found that Nick and she had two million dollar life insurance policies. This is used as a motive and Libby is convicted of his murder. As Libby serves her time in prison, she entrusts her friend, Angela, Annabeth Gish, with her son. Over some time, Libby finds out through a phone call to Angela and Matty, Benjamin Weir, that Nick had staged his own death and was still alive. After serving six years in prison, she is released on parole. She violates her parole and through her own investigation finds out that Angela is dead and that her husband lives in New Orleans under a new identity. By skipping town, her correctional officer Travis Lehman, played by Tommy Lee Jones, is on her trail. He finds out what she is after and teams up with the local police to track her down. Once in New Orleans, Parsons finds the new Jonathan Deberaux and lets him know that she found him. She tells him that all she wants is her son and he agrees. He sets her up, however, at the cemetery by pretending that her son is there, but he knocks her out and puts her in a casket in a catacomb. Travis finds Libby after she escapes but instead of taking her in, he helps her to finish what she was there to do. He goes back to question Jonathan one last time about why Libby may want to find him, but instead tapes him when he says that he buried her and that there was nothing left to worry about. Libby comes into the room and demands her child again with a gun in her hand. Jonathan tries to get her to put it down by asking her if she wanted to serve time again. She tells him, how ever, what she learned in prison from an inmate. As the conversation heats up, Libby’s husband shoots Travis, but Libby kills Mr.

The benefits of preschool Essay -- essays research papers

Everyone has his or her own first day of kindergarten experiences. Some might have been more memorable while others still trying to forget. Mine was merely an observance and evaluation period. After I gave my mother a kiss goodbye, and placed my belongings in the cubbyhole I was ready to learn, but unfortunately the majority of the other students were not. Considering one can not get too accomplished over many loud high-pitched cries, I was forced to be patient and suffer silently from boredom.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Preschool is a beneficial tool for children because they learn social skills and gain an appreciation at an early age for the education system. The prefix â€Å"pre-â€Å" means before or prior to. Preschool education refers to the education of children prior to the first grade of elementary school (Melton 181). By the time kindergarten started I was already comfortable with the idea and concept. I was not only ready, but excited to go to school to learn and meet old and new friends.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Rachel and Margaret McMillian (Boyer 47) first developed the nursery school system in England of 1911. They were first coordinated to serve the needs of the poor, and health, nutrition, and social services were provided with an educational program (Boyer 48). Because preschools are subject to licensing regulations and because they have qualified teachers, they provide a valuable experience for each child beyond and baby-sitting service (Kranyik 91). The nursery-school movement began in the 19th century with the growth of the factory system. Mothers were often at work long hours at a time while younger children were left neglected. They were established so those mothers could leave their children in a safe place while they worked. Preschool is an option, but because of the state of the economy, it has forced both of the parents to seek full-time employment, they have no choice. With many children living in a single parent families, the custodial parent may have to work to support the family. Parents who are professionals and want to stay in position as well as raise a family need child care while they are at work (Kranyik 91).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The modern nursery school has changed the mold from when it was first introduced. It is centered more around education than daycare. After WWI many different universities set up labora... ...bservations and understanding of the child as he is, not as adults imagine he might or should be. Dr. Montessori then devised a total environment to help the child develop himself as a total human being. She saw the role of the teacher as one of directing activity rather than actually teaching, so she preferred to use the name â€Å"directress instead of â€Å"teacher.† There are many differences between Montessori and traditional preschool but the basic idea stays the same.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Although preschools were mainly invented for the convenience of adults (Melton 182), the have evolved from sandboxes and finger painting to letter blocks and handwriting instructions. Everything is created for the advancement is actually benefiting the preschooler now and in the future even more so. Melton, David, How to Help Your Preschooler Learn. New York, NY: David McKay Company, Inc. 1976 Malloy, Terry, Montessori and Your Child. New York, NY: Schocken Books 1974 Kranyik, Margery A., Starting School. New York, NY: Continuum 1982 Hainstock, Elizabeth, The Essential Montessori. New York, NY: Plume Printing 1986 Boyer, Ernest L., Ready to Learn. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation 1991

Male Versus Female

The battle of the sexes has been going on since the beginning of mankind. Women were once stereotyped as mere housewives, and the men were labeled as breadwinners. Over time, the title given to the so-called weaker sex has evolved up to par with that of men. Now, they almost stand on equal footing as them. When it comes to leadership though, I believe that females outshine their male counterparts in almost every measure. According to Rochelle Sharpe (2003), it has been approximately twenty-five years since women have started pouring into the labor force and have been trying to be more like men in every way. They now wear power suits and go out on golf luncheons with board executives, but despite them doing all the copying, new research is beginning suggest that men ought to be the ones doing more of the imitating. As discovered in an in-depth performance evaluation conducted on the year 2002 by Hagberg Consulting Group in Foster City, California – out of the four hundred twenty-five high-level executives that were evaluated, the women executives got higher ratings on fourty-two of the fifty-two skills measured. Despite all of this growing progress for females everywhere, it is still obvious that men have continued to dominate a majority of the business world. According to the Labor Department, as of the year 2004, only two of the nations five hundred biggest companies have female CEO’s and of the one thousand largest corporations, only six were being run by women. The reason for this male dominance is simply because women are not given an equal stand as men when it comes to job opportunities. Some businesses view women only as workhorses, or in a sense that they are well suited for demanding careers in middle management, but not for prime jobs. As a result of this, most women get stuck in jobs that involve human resources or public relations – posts that rarely lead to the top. (Sharpe, 2003) Both men and women have different styles of leadership, and the actual difference lies between how much listening is done. When it comes to women, they are naturally more open about sharing information and take the time to communicate with people and to hear what their inputs are. It is through this that they are able to gather more information that they can effectively analyze then implement into a plan that uses the best of the ideas presented. On the other hand, men do not take time to stop and smell the flowers – instead, they have the tendency to go straight to their point of view and present it in a ‘as a matter of fact’ manner. This way, they save time and have everyone agreeing to their plan of action. Well this is because men are not as flexible or willing to interact with others. (Grenberg, 2004) As a result, male leaders may actually tend to force their perspective and use their position influence others. Despite this being the quicker way of getting things done in a non-sloppy manner, it ironically does not make it as efficient as the way the opposite sex works. The manner that females work is by most of the time, simply listening. They take the initiative to gather ideas, research, and so forth from the people they are working with. They do not force their ideas on them, but rather, improve them with teamwork. It is because of this that they are able to produce better outputs and are more effective leaders than males. From the very start, women have often been associated with being a mother figure; therefore, even female leaders tend to be seen more as caring mothers rather than strong-willed heads. In relation to this, there are companies who assume that people skills are not business skills, which basically undermines their strengths. (Fletcher, 2002). Men though, are then associated with being the breadwinners of the family – a person who knows how to lead. Male leaders are seen as powerful members of society who have a good head on their shoulders and are tough enough to handle anything that comes their way. The notion that women are not as tough, is only something that is assumed. Although the majority may not be as physically strong as their counterpart, they are on the same level in terms of intellect. Women are associated with mothers, which means that they know how to take care of those working for them. Because they know how to deal with the most energetic of children, they can put their motherly instincts into motivating people – they are gifted with inborn people skills. According to the book Disappearing Acts: Gender, Power and Relational Practice at Work, written by Joyce Fletcher in 2002, employees that feel cared about by their bosses or are inspired by them, often produce higher-quality work; and supervisors who know how to deal with conflicts get better results. The conclusion can only be that by taking care of their employees, they are not only taking charge of them subtly but producing greater output in the process. In the present, the number of women that posses high-ranking positions may only add up to a mere fraction of the male population in the same position but it does not prove that the latter is more competent but rather that the former is being viewed as incompetent. The never-ending bias against female leaders has been going on forever, but they have been fighting back little by little. Women have come a long way from being a gender with no equality with the other sex, a gender that had no rights to vote, and a gender that had been stereotyped as a housewife. They have fought hard all these decades, and still continue to fight for the equality that they deserve. But despite the evident inequality, I still believe that female leaders outshine their male counterparts in almost every measure.