1. Discuss the formal curriculum and hidden curriculum for women and men in education in the U.S. in the 20thcentury.
2. Discuss the 1964 Civil Rights Act and Title IX. Which groups are protected and which are not?
3. What is linguistic sexism and include examples?
4. Discuss symbolic annihilation in media.
5. Discuss reproductive freedom.
6. Discuss the challenges of single parents. Include statistical data.
7. Discuss the different types of child abuse and warning signs. What is a mandatory reporter?
8. Discuss HIV/AIDS infection rates among men and women and among ethnic minorities and men who have sex with men.
9. Discuss the textbook and the attached article on college degrees and employment trends for women in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM).
10. Discuss tokenism, the glass ceiling and institutional discrimination. Include a discussion on pay gap and provide statistical data.
'Multiculturalism isn't about contrast and personality as such however about those that are implanted in and managed by culture' (Parekh, 2000:2). Regardless of the way that most nations today are socially assorted, it is difficult to talk about the principle sociological issues raised by the possibility of a multicultural society without clarifying to start with, what is simply the importance of culture? The most widely recognized meaning of culture alludes to a mind boggling substance which incorporates information, conviction, craftsmanship, ethics, traditions and propensities obtained by individuals from a general public. Claire Alexander considers culture to be an arrangement of customs and convictions connected to ethnicity and normal birthplaces which prompted the acknowledgment that culture isn't a settled arrangement of convictions, yet it is made and unmade in day by day life. (1996) The inquiry of multiculturalism isn't a current theme for wrangle since it has been available in the political existence of European nations since 1945, year that does check the Second World War as well as the start of a time of concerns and changes. The principle issues raised by this issue allude to movement, designation of energy and developing quantities of political displaced people and refuge searchers. However, facilitate issues develop concerning aggregate and political rights, liberal thoughts, character, and individual flexibility. (Rex, 2003) Moreover, Kymlicka recommends that the assorted variety of societies we are encountering today has prompted a contention amongst dominant parts and minorities over issues, for example, dialect, self-governance, political portrayal, and national personality (1996). He additionally contends this, for the most part influences majority rules systems: 'endeavors to make liberal vote based establishments are being undermined by fierce patriot clashes; unpredictable arguments about the privileges of migrants, indigenous people groups, and other social minorities are tossing into question a significant number of the presumptions which have represented political life for quite a long time's (1996: 2) Up to this point, multiculturalism was seen by legislators and rulers as a positive quality of present day and country states. Nonetheless, this recognition changed because of ethnic clashes inside countries, for example, the ethnic purging in Yugoslavia or the mobs in the United Kingdom amongst Asians and local British subjects. In the previous couple of years, numerous savants and social researchers have brought an enthusiasm into the possibility of social assorted variety and attempted to characterize the picture of a liberal society, answer the inquiry whether singular rights ought to be extended to gatherings and take care of the issue of acknowledgment which showed up it suggested the refusal of individual rights in any case. (Rex, 2003) On this issue, Charles Taylor contends that indeed, acknowledgment is a basic segment of the idea of rights and people could be perceived as a major aspect of a gathering (1994). Keeping in mind the end goal to grow his contention, he goes as far back as the crumple of social pecking orders and the old administration and states the regular component that constitutes both a chain of importance and a fair society. He guarantees that the old chains of command depended on the idea of "respect" which despite the fact that it involved decision, it characterized the people of the general public; the term we utilize today is "nobility". Then again, Taylor expresses that acknowledgment has gained an alternate significance with the new comprehension of individual personality that developed toward the finish of the eighteenth century. This new thought concentrated on the internal voice of the individual and on the idea of realness: 'on the first view, the inward voice was essential since it discloses to us what the proper activity is; being in contact with our ethical sentiments matter here, as a way to the finish of acting appropriately' (1994:28) He likewise contends that personality is fundamentally aggregate and that social rights can't be appreciated by people alone on the grounds that they are aggregate by nature. In any case, Taylor's position crashes into the liberal custom which depends on the possibility of individual opportunity and the lack of bias. As indicated by Henri Giordan, the mainstay of the cutting edge society is battling for singular flexibility as opposed to the conventional structures of social orders. Hence, the advance of civic establishments was reflected in the right to speak freely and squeeze, freedom to accumulate political gatherings and vote, ideas which characterized human rights that in Pareks` see: 'speak to an awesome verifiable accomplishment' (2006: 17) Furthermore, he clarifies that: 'without precedent for history (human rights) give a generally open good and political dialect in which to express our mutual concerns and contrasts. In this manner it assembles moral bonds between people in various parts of the world and makes a familiarity with our common humankind.' (2006:17) In any case, Parekh recommends that human rights ought to take after three conditions: 'initially, they ought to be vitally identified with and key for an existence of poise; also, they ought to be general or somewhat universalizable in the double sense that every individual are qualified for guarantee them and that this claim reaches out to all social orders; thirdly, human rights ought to be broadly acknowledged all things considered by a culturally diverse agreement.' (2006:25) With a specific end goal to support this perspective, Kymlicka states that minority rights are indistinguishable from human rights and says UNESCO: 'the resistance of social decent variety is a moral basic indistinguishable from regard for human nobility. It suggests a pledge to human rights and essential opportunities, specifically the rights having a place with minorities and those of indigenous people groups. Social rights are a basic piece of human rights, which are all inclusive, indissoluble and associated.' (UNESCO, Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, 2001) In any case, the ascent of majority rules system was severely hindered by the First and Second World War. National character turned into a risk for belief systems, for example, despotism and Nazism which prompted a disastrous result (Kym1icka, 1992). A few minorities were killed, either by removal or by genocide while different minorities were absorbed and power to receive the dialect, traditions and religion of the dominant part gathering and were denied political rights. It ended up obvious toward the finish of the Second World War that an alternate way to deal with minorities' rights was vital and endeavors were made to redistribute aggregate rights to people as opposed to allowing unique rights to individuals from a gathering. (Kymlicka, 1996) Beginning with the 1980s, another measurement was given to minorities rights and Kymlicka recommends that 'these progressions have taken after two tracks: there is one track for the particular instance of "indigenous people groups", and another track for "minorities" as a rule' (2007:31) He continues clarifying that the rights that were only given to indigenous people groups (the Indians and Inuit in Canada, Aboriginal in Australia, Indian clans in the United States, the Maori of new Zealand) included land claims, dialect rights, standard law and portrayal in the focal government: 'this is a recognition that is now and then advanced by indigenous people groups themselves and their promoters, who attest that the status of indigenous people groups has nothing just the same as the cases of "minorities", and that the belief system of "indigenism" has no association with more broad hypotheses of multiculturalism' (2007: 34) The last track that Kymlicka discloses alludes to the qualification between "memorable minorities" (that were generally settled in the nation and included gatherings that were viewed as "indigenous people groups" and long-standing "national minorities": the Scots and Welsh of Britain, the Catalans and Basques in Spain, Puerto Rico in United States) and the "vagrants" (2007). In what migration is concerned, it creates the impression that the nations with a high thickness of vagrants (Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States) have moved toward the issue of migration through a procedure of digestion with the expectation that they will mix in with the local conceived residents. Strong proof for the advance of minority rights was given by the European Union when they pronounced that the advancement of minority rights was the "rising criteria" for the nations that needed to join the Union (Kymlicka 2007) Another point that Kymlicka approaches in his hypothesis alludes to the qualification and the association between "aggregate rights" and "individual rights". He starts by clarifying that there are two implications of "aggregate rights": 'aggregate rights could allude to one side of a gathering to constrain the freedom of its own individual individuals for the sake of gathering solidarity or social immaculateness ("inward limitations"); or it could allude to one side of a gathering to restrict the monetary or political power practiced by the bigger society over the gathering, to guarantee that the assets and foundations on which the minority depends are not defenseless against dominant part choices ("outside insurances")' (1996: 36) The inside limitations suggest intra-amass relations-the gathering may utilize the state energy to restrain the freedom of its own individuals which brought up the issue of individual mistreatment. For instance, Kymlicka alludes to culture where ladies are persecuted or societies were the religious conventionality is implemented. Additionally, he contends that a few minorities would confine much further the privileges of their individuals: 'it is one thing to expect individuals to do jury obligation or to vote, and very another to constrain individuals to go to a specific church or to take after customary sex parts. The previous are expected to maintain liberal rights and majority rule organizations, the last confine these rights for the sake of social custom or religious conventionality.' (1996:36) Outer securities infer between assemble relations-the ethnic/national gathering looks to save its refinement and character by restricting the impact of the choices taken by the larger part gathering. Doing s>GET ANSWER