Madeleine An Autobiography Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Madeleine An Autobiography - Essay Example Madeleine lived in a society which would rather abhor social digresses like Madeleine than treating the cause of digression. Being a woman of the late Gilded Age, Madeleine had to suffer from the social problems such as gender discrimination, moral decay, the rapid collapse of the rural economy, etc which were directly related to industrialization and urbanization. Though the Gilded Age experienced the boom of the mechanized urban economy, it was not prepared enough to face the commotions and moral decay that the collapse of the rural decline. Women, of affluent social status, like Madeleine, could hardly bear the insult which the society inflicted upon for them for the moral digression. But the society could do little to protect them from the lust of their male counterparts. Therefore, being forced by circumstances, they choose prostitution to save their own lives.  Being raised with pure Christian teachings in an economically affluent family, Madeleine could have fairly managed a decent way of living for herself. â€Å"She was brought up in a strict heaven-and-hell belief† (Madeleine 34). Even her great-grandfather was quite well-known for his religiosity. He was â€Å"often quick to anger, she said, but he was also quick to repentance, and if he had offended relative or friend he asked his pardon and the pardon of God before he slept.† (Madeleine 45) Though Madeleine’s religious background and teaching were few of psychological strengths which could protect her from being a prostitute. But ironically her family background and religious teachings contribute to the growth of self-reproach, for her juvenile pregnancy, so strongly that she took a wrong decision to run away from Mrs. James’s house in Missouri.  Even if she could remain with her mother in her hometown, she might have received her mother’s proper attention. She needed parental support in her home. She â€Å"needed both her parents† (Madeleine 23).  

Osmosis Triple Science Essay Example for Free

Osmosis Triple Science Essay Introduction In this investigation I am investigating if varying the amount of sugar solution or distilled water determines the concentration of cell sap. I will do this by using different concentrations of sugar solution and distilled water. If the medium is hypotonic — a dilute solution, with a higher water concentration than the cell — the cell will gain water through osmosis. However if the medium is isotonic —a solution with exactly the same water concentration as the cell — there will be no net movement of water across the cell membrane. If the medium is hypertonic — a concentrated solution, with a lower water concentration than the cell — the cell will lose water by osmosis. Investigation variables To have a controlled reliable investigation I will control the following variables: To try my best to do the experiments at the same room temperature. I will prepare the carrots in the same way because any minor changes can ruin the experiment. The mass of the carrots is a dependent variable and this terminology means that the piece of carrot will be measured constantly throughout the experiment. I will measure in grams, in addition the piece of carrot will be measured before and after it is put into the solution, this will allow us to see if any osmosis has taken place. Fourthly the volume of the solution which the carrot pieces are put in must be same for all of them for example all of them should be covered in what is supposed to be covered in. Also I am going to use the same set of scales to measure the carrot pieces in the solution. This is because measurements may vary between the scales. I did this in a lab so everything was under control to make my results very reliable. My hypothesis I predict that the less sugar solution we use the higher the concentration of the cell sap would be. Plan First I will take some xylem cells from inside of the carrot and some phloem from the outside of the carrot I will take 15 samples of each type of cell from each carrot I will put 3 samples in each solution I would then leave it for 1 hour Then I would reweigh its mass Then plot these results onto a graph And then where the line crosses 0 is the concentration of the cytoplasm Conclusion As I conclude I can say that in my investigation I found out that the more sugar solution you cover in the carrot piece the higher the concentration of cell sap would be and there would be more osmosis activity. However what does mystify me is what you can see above, the two outliers because they don not surprisingly fit with the others but I am sure that if we do this investigation again there would be two outliers or less.

Concept Of Economic Base And Superstructure Sociology Essay

Concept Of Economic Base And Superstructure Sociology Essay In Marxist theory of history, existence of human life depends upon economic activity. This activity is determined by the combination of superstructure and substructure/base. The notion of Base-Superstructure is mainly concerned with the mode of production, forces of production, relations of production and social consciousness. It is situated on the scientific view that course of history socioeconomic formation can be predicted on the basis of material needs and conditions of a society. This scientific behavior of Marx economic theory distinguishes it from other theories. The object of this dichotomy is to explain the nature of economical production and human productive activity for survival. The distinction between them was initially stated in Part one of The German Ideology by Karl Marx and Engels in 1846. This economic theory of social system is so deterministic that limits and directs the human activity and ideology. In order to know the dialectical activity of superstructure and base, it is necessary to understand the disposition of base because of all human economic activity is founded on it. The Great Soviet Encyclopedia (1979) states base as: The base of a society is the totality of the historically determined relations of production. Base is divided into two parts: forces of production and relations of production. Productive forces are characterized as those phenomena which influence the substructure or economical base. These phenomena are important for the stability of economic base and nature of base/substructure determines the superstructure. Thus both of these entities have dialectical character. This antagonistic relation between base and superstructure gives revolution an uplift. Individual becomes conscious when the other society fellows struggle frames the economic transformation with the corresponding changes in superstructure and base. So, changes in cultural institutions such as law, art, education, philosophy and religion correspond with the prior changes in the economic substructure. It is the ideology that designs changes in the behavior of workers. Conflicts in the productive forces and relations of production stimulate awareness in the owners of the laborers class. And due to this conflict a social transition results in a new form of society. Mode/Method of production quantitatively and qualitatively changes. In this developed form forces and relations of production fit precisely together unless working class becomes fully aware of the exploitation of their rights, laboring activity and extra working hours. Old superstructure collapses and transforms in relation to substructure making the antagonistic relationship between the employers and employee. The confrontation in the classes during the steadfast dialectical process in the history, arises the working class to take a stand against the ruling class, for example French Renaissance. Productive forces which have been changing technologically throughout the history. Beginning from the primitive communism to the present day era, handmade simple tools replaced by complicated machines. Modes of labor and skill also transformed. Man-power utilized in the mills instead of crops and fields from the first step of extracting crude material to the shaping and recycling, employers learned to manage the skillful and useful workers accordingly. This framed the society into different relations of production. Social formation is settled on how the forces and relations of production fit together. So every society has its own relations. More developed the society, more complex the relations are. Primitive society, concept of collective ownership prevailed. the concept of private property introduced class differences, class society into commanding masters and submissive slaves, In feudalism into feudal lords and serfs and in capitalism into bourgeoisie and proletariats. In all the se times producer has been used to produce capital goods which alienated him from his activity, production and surrounding. And the powerful gained control over the human laboring activity as well as the material goods. Though the dominant class is less in number than the dominated yet the money strengthens and legalize the authority of power-broker on police, media, law-abiding and other cultural institutions. This outspread mastery now rules the thoughts and beliefs of the citizenry. These beliefs are set by the ruling class according to their interests. The material base is headed by the ideological superstructure. These ideas cover political, theological, economical, legal, educational sides to justify divisions of class. It is the duty of the subordinates to serve the superior class though the workers are waged for their struggles. In order to legitimize their rule, they must seem as saviors who possess best managerial capabilities, which necessitate their existence to refrain the society from chaos. Unconsciously, in the most cases, people adopt the servile attitude and work for authorities willingly. Religion, in the course of human history, has been a key factor in making agreeable mindset in favor of the political parties, for example, geocentricism could not be criticized in the 17th century because of the church priests. Marx says religion as opiate of the class that dulls the mind. From early childhood schooling to the university level, this consistent indoctrination is tutored. This Engels called as false consciousness. The working class accepts the ideas as is, remains unaware of its interests thus suffers from alienation and exploitation. Conclusion They correlate when the productive activity is in interaction with needs. This means the mutual relations between the quantity and quality of the production. For example, in the industrial society, a huge man power working in the fields is replaced by the machines. Harvesters and tractors supersede the farmers. It made many skilful persons out-of-work. Their old knowledge does not correspond with the new technology. Quality of labor activity reduced and quantity of production increased. Now more food with better nutrition can be produced in lesser time. Skills of earlier stage of society do not coincide in their characteristics with skills of later stage. Society is administered by laws not based on laws. Its base is economy. People work and earn to live. Their interests and skills determine their choice of occupation. A single person cannot live without a society. He/she is an integral part of society, its norms, culture and attitude. People live together because it fulfils their needs too. Thus, livelihood is the key factor of social formation. Law, politics, norms, and others are second prior to economy. These are tied in by the material needs and prevailing productive techniques. This makes the whole mode of production. And consequently, change in the productive activity will precede an ideological change. Thus; this change in productive activity needs formulation of new laws or changes in prevalent legal commands of society to improve the status of life and agree with its requirements (cloth, food, dwellings). This is the classical example showing that superstructure reacts upon the change in the base. Intellectual ability, judgment, ideals and high level of cognition distinguishes humans form other beings in the nature. Their faculty of reason helps them to be habituated with the surrounding. They do not migrate to other lands just because of the intense weather or other usual changes in the environment as most birds do. Instead, they generate their ways of sustenance. Unlike animals, they develop their living standards. A human society is not just a mass of walking-talking bodies. They also have minds to think and evaluate with. Though they are combined in groups with common interests, it is natural that they develop a common understanding. Thinking is a subjective activity conditioned with biases and prior education. Being a part of a society, individuals think on different grounds. Every man is unique in his nature and builds his philosophy of life as he sees it. This philosophy is detrimental if imposed on others forcefully. Like elders in families, every society needs a body of leadership capable enough to maintain law and order. This part of society is called superstructure in historical materialism. Economic base is capped with the ideological superstructure. Forces of production regulate social relations of production not the other way around. These forces are

The Roswell Incident :: essays papers

The Roswell Incident The Roswell Incident, which enlightened our minds to the capacity of excepting all, has remained one of the most controversial issues today. In Roswell, New Mexico, 1947, a strange occurrence arises. An alien craft from outer space crashed in an open field. The issue lay still for almost thirty years, until the thought of a government cover-up arose. SocietyÆs opinions have changed over the years. Previous to the 1990Æs, people have despised the thought of sharing the universe with other intelligent life forms. Now people are interested in this mysterious phenomenon. People think it is the blame of the movies and television. By watching this, people are at a level at which they understand. Not only do these movies entertain, they inform people about the little information we obtained from the government. The thought of government cover-ups have been long discussed. The government has always, in the past, tried to keep any sign of aliens, whether it be pictures from space, to crashes on earth, to a low or nonexistent level. Just recently has the government been harassed to the point where they actually gave us clues to alien existence. It has in some ways been believed that the government has worked in partnership with popular movie directors, to produce alien movies to ease the thought that we may not be alone. Such movies as à ´The Arrivalà ¶ and the ever popular à ´Independence Dayà ¶ are very good examples of well convincing alien movies. If this is true, they did a good job, because statistics state that 75% of people today believe that there is some kind of intelligent life forms besides ourselves in the universe. That is very convincing compared to the 20% whom believed 25 years ago. à ´ New opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any other reason but b ecause they are not already common.à ¶ (MacGowan 261) A local New Mexico rancher, MacBrazel, while riding out in the morning to check his sheep after a long night of thunderstorms, discovered a considerable amount of debris. It created a gouge several hundred feet long and was scattered over a large area. Some of the debris had strange physical properties. He took some debris to show his neighbors then his son. Soon after that he notified the sheriff. The sheriff then contacted the authorities at Roswell Army Air Field Base. The are was closed off and the debris was eventually flown by B-29 and C-54 aircraft to Wright Field in Dayton, Ohio.

Explain and critically assess Weber’s conception of power

Introduction This essay explains and critically assesses Max Weber’s conception of power. In the current study Weber is identified as manifesting both the Hobbesian and Machiavellian proto-realist perspectives: in conceptualising power as fundamentally connected to implicit threat and coercive force. Hence the current study outlines the ways in which Weber’s notions of power hinge largely on the state’s coercive capabilities, examining various forms of social, political, and cultural violence therein. Further, the current study draws comparisons between Weber and Marx, looking at the similarities and distinction between the two thinkers: concluding that Weber has a different and more complex understanding of class divisions and power struggles than Marx did. The Many Faces of Power: Legitimate Domination and Willing Subjugation The renowned German sociologist Max Weber came to prominence in the latter half of the nineteenth century, a time in which the politico-economic theories of his precursor Karl Marx were beginning to take hold in Europe; when the â€Å"the spectre of Communism†, as the Communist Manifesto termed it, was â€Å"haunting† the continent (Marx and Engels, 2012, p.33). Moreover, this was a time of great social and political transformation in the West, whereupon the overall character of European polities had been drastically altered by waves of democratic fervour and revolutionary violence. The Revolutions of 1848, for instance, represented the single most concentrated outcrop of political upheaval in the history of European politics. â€Å"The 1848 revolutions†, says Micheline R. Ishay, â€Å"were a watershed. In the most industrialized countries, they broke the liberal-radical republican alliance against legitimist regimes and catalysed the formation of the most radic al human rights perspectives of the century† (2008, p.121). In a very significant sense, said revolutions were a movement against the established power structures of the era. This was a time of great liberal reform and technological change; the social and political apparatuses by which international relations were hitherto understood were being fundamentally transformed – as were theoretical conceptions of power. Although the 1848 Revolutions were mostly checked and curbed within a year of their outbreak, the underlying sentiment and intellectual kindling had not been extinguished. Instead, it fomented in various forms: one of which would lead eventually to the rise of Communism in the early twentieth century. With such conspicuous changes in the makeup of political relations during the nineteenth century, there came concurrent shifts in critical perspectives on how and why such changes occurred. Marx had upheld a perspective that prioritised historical materialism and the fundamental primacy of class struggle as defining political relations. Power, for Marx, concerned the power of those capitalist elites who owned the means of production to exploit the workers whose labour literally made production happen. Marx’s political philosophy was extremely widespread, known even to those who abjured it. For Marx, power also has much to do with class divisions: particularly between those who ow n the means of production, the bourgeoisie, and the workers, or proletariat, who exchange their labour value for wages. Power is thus manifested in the oppression of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie – for whom the social and political structures are geared to preserve the status quo, keeping the workers in a state of social, economic, and political subordination. Marx’s understanding of power, then, is concerned with large scale social and historical forces, particularly as they relate to material and industrial relations in determining power and overall socio-political mechanics. Weber, on the other hand, developed an approach that varied from the Marxian mould, stepping away from the perceived predominance of grand overarching forces in determining social and political relations. As a result, Weber also moved away from Marx’s theory of the strict bourgeoisie/proletariat duality as being the dominant paradigm in political economy. The latter class division was, for Marx, the principle animus for change in capitalist societies. As a consequence, Marx’s conception of power cannot be separated from his overall understanding of the relationship between capitalists and workers. For Weber, socio-economic divisions, and their relations to power, are far more complex than those posited by Marx. Weber understood class distinctions as deriving from more than just an inequality in property relations; instead, Weber posited that it was the unequal distribution of power that resulted in social dividing lines. Power for Weber was, again, more intricate and mu ltifaceted than the kind Marx had proposed. Weber states that power is â€Å"the chance of a man or of a number of men to realize their own will in a communal action even against the resistance of others who are participating in the action† (1968, p.926). Already we can see that Weber’s rendition of power is more abstract and open to interpretation that that of Marx. Further, Weber’s conception of power is similar to modern critical formulations of same; where â€Å"power†, at its most fundamental, â€Å"entails the capacity of one actor to make another actor do something which they would not otherwise do† (Haugaard, 2004, p.304). Most importantly, Weber’s definition is very broad; it allows for application in a number of contexts: social, economic, political, cultural, familial, sexual, interpersonal, and many others. Violence and Coercion: the Centrality of Force in Power Relations Weber’s conception of power is â€Å"inextricably connected to violence and coercion† (Kreisberg, 1992, p.39). Such violence is articulated though various social structures, from the microcosm of the family to the macrocosm of the state. Weber consequently sees â€Å"subjects as being on the receiving end of structures of power† (Whimster and Lash, 2006, p.22). The interactions between these discrete structures of power allow for varying degrees of control over the exercise of violence: where certain individuals or groups have access to or are denied the means to exert their will. For Weber, such means obtain to ideas of legitimacy. Hence, for Weber, the question of power relate to issues about: â€Å"who controls the means of violence; who enjoys a monopoly over economic resources; who controls the legitimate means of political power; and finally who has control over symbolic force† (Turner, 2002, p.215). Social action is thus enabled by control of distin ct fields of power. The more such fields of power can be channelled and consolidated, the more power that obtains. This can be seen very clearly, for example, in the state’s exclusive mandate on legal violence (via armed forces, police, prisons, and so forth). Hence Weber defines the state as â€Å"that agency within society which possesses the monopoly of legitimate violence† (cited in Wanek, 2013, p.12). Accordingly, in Weber’s view, the implicit threat of violence perpetually underwrites the state’s authority. Thus Weber’s position anticipates Mao Zedong’s famous declaration that â€Å"political power grows out of the barrel of a gun† (cited in Wardlaw, 1989, p.43). For Weber, then, coercive force is fundamental to power. Put simply, coercion equates to influence; and influence is power. National political power is therefore structured on implied coercive mechanisms. Hence Weber avers that â€Å"if no social institutions existed that knew the use of violence, then the ‘state’ would be eliminated† (cited in Wagner, 2002, p.120). So conceived, the state is in itself a form of coercive apparatus. Because the state monopolises legal violence, the state is the primary source of power as such. This means access to power is achieved via access to and control over the mechanisms of state. Power is thus manifested in the specific structures on which the social order is based. However, Weber does not believe that power is constituted in coercive force exclusively. Instead, a dynamic of obedience obtains between the ruling class and those ruled: in which the latter group willingly obey their political leaders. Here, Weber’s conce ption of power becomes more complex, delineating ideas of legitimate domination. As Weber perceives it, social conformity, or, as he puts it, â€Å"performance of the command†, may â€Å"have been motivated by the ruled’s own conviction of its propriety, or by his sense of duty, or by fear, or by ‘dull’ custom, or by a desire to obtain some benefit for himself† (1968, p.947). The dominated thus inadvertently cooperate in their domination. Hence we can see that Weber’s conceptualisation of power echoes a Hobbesian perspective, which stresses a central causality between a â€Å"sovereign† power and popular subjugation (Sreedhar, 2010, p.33). Furthermore, state power and interest are related to a conflictual paradigm where self-interest and the will to domination are taken as a given. Weber thus articulates a realist perspective. In addition, Weber’s notion of legitimate domination somewhat chimes with Gramscian hegemony, in that power is constituted and reconstituted in various complex sites, working overall to legitimise the status quo. As a result of this, Weber is distinct from Marx in two very important ways: firstly, he sees power as more abstract, subtle, and complex than Marx does; secondly, he sees power as deriving from many different types of social phenomena – not just class struggle. Following this logic, Weber also applies the same extended complexity to the concept of the origin s of power. Thus, for Weber, power comes from â€Å"three different sources†: â€Å"class (economic power), status (social power), and parties (political power)† (Levine, 2006, p.6). As we can see, then, Weber’s conception of power is based on coercion, force, domination, social structures, and a quasi-hegemonic socio-political structure that promotes and induces willing subjugation in the populace. Weber’s ideas are clearly more reflective of realist political theory than of Marxian idealism, which posits utopic notions of eventual global socialist harmony. This is not to say that Weber wholesale rejects the Marxian position, he does not; rather, he accommodates Marx’s economic arguments in his overall politico-economic model. Further, he expands upon and problematises them. As one would therefore expect, much like his conception of power, Weber’s conception of class is far more nuanced and open to interpretation than that of Marx. For Weber, class pertains to the numerous potential relations that may obtain in a given economic market. In particular, this relates to relationships that arise between an individual, or a group, as concerns a given market. This means that different kinds of economic distinctions will give rise to specific forms of class relation – not just a worker/capitalist polarity. Weber sees class as a social concept that encompasse s numerous iterations within an overall economic purview. Such iterations include professionals, landowners, bankers, financiers, and many others (Hamilton, 1991, p.182). In sum, then, Weber recognises numerous different kinds of class distinctions, each with their own complex sets of power relations. This heterogeneity, in turn, adds complexity to the overall function of power in its specific fields and sites of operation. For Weber, then, power relates to a multiform phenomenon. In treating of the economic dimensions of power, Weber observes that the â€Å"typical chance for a supply of goods, external living conditions, and personal life experiences† are fundamentally determined by â€Å"the amount and kind of power, or lack of such, to dispose of goods or skills† for the sake of â€Å"income in a given economic order† (1968, p.927). Hence Weber observes a clear causal continuum between economic and other kinds of power, where one can come to necessitate (or, at least, facilitate) the other. Where Weber significantly diverges from Marx is in his posited importance of the modes of power that function semi-independently of economic considerations. Specifically, Weber places much emphasis on social status. â€Å"For Weber, status groups are collectives of people with similar lifestyles, and they often overlap with economic class position† (Levine, 2006, p.6). In other words, the socially powerful tend to be located in economically powerful cohorts; at the same time, those without social power tend to be associated with non-economically powerful cohorts. This last assertion can seem very similar to the Marxian view, of the powerful bourgeoisie and non-powerful proletariat. However, the important distinction in Weber’s position is that affinities are drawn more primarily from social, not economic, similarities. Put simply, for Weber, two individuals or groups with similar social lives but different economic statuses could cohere nonetheless; their social alignment supersedes their economic misalignment. The economic distinction is not, for Weber, as integrally conflictual as it is for Marx. This is not to say the Weber does not see class as an important social factor; rather, it to say that, unlike Marx, Weber does not see class struggle as the defining characteristic of history and society. He does not therefore adopt Marx and Engel’s famous assertion that â€Å"all history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle† (2012, p.33). Hence, while Weber sees class as a significant variable in overall quality of life, in dictating one’s opportunities for advancement, for the acquisition of power, he does not identify a corollary primacy in class as catalysing social action and historical change. Friction between social forces – as embodied by class – is not the central source of social tension. This has to do with Weber’s complex and diverse view of class. Weber sees class as heterogeneous and thus not easily reducible to two opposing factions. Compared to Weber, Marx’s views of power and class are over ly reductive. Of the worker, Weber observes, his â€Å"interests† may â€Å"vary widely, according to whether he is constitutionally qualified for the task at hand to a high, to an average, or to a low degree†, meaning, in consequence, that â€Å"societal or even of communal action† from â€Å"a common class situation† is â€Å"by no means a universal phenomenon† (Weber, 1968, p. 929). In other words, the working class cannot simply be lumped together in a bloc group understood as sharing uniform priorities and ambitions. In many senses, that is, power moves beyond material and economic divisions; cannot be attributed to isolated causes and motivations. Conclusion In conclusion, Weber’s conception of power is much in keeping with that proffered by classical realists, where coercive force constitutes the primary hinge around which political power moves. By extension, other manifestations of power both derive legitimacy from, while at the same time reciprocally legitimating, the state: by functioning within its purview. Weber diverges from Marxian reductivism, rejecting the polarity of capitalist/worker class struggle and the primacy of historical materialism. Weber accordingly refutes Marx’s position that common class identity is sufficient to galvanise a homogenous intellectual action; he thus identifies many more lines of division between various social groups. For Weber, power is deeply related to social structures; indeed, power is seen to body forth though social structures, thereby keeping the popular masses in place. Interestingly, the power invested in said structures works, also, to instil a sense of obedience in the publ ic. The public therefore helps to perpetuate the status quo by conforming with, thus legitimating, the state’s exercise of coercive force. References Hamilton, P., 1991. Max Weber, Critical Assessments 2: Volume 2. London: Routledge. Haugaard, P., 2004. Power: A Reader. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Ishay, M. R., 2008. The History of Human Rights: From Ancient Times to the Globalization Era. Berkley, CA: University of California Press. Levine, R. H., 2006. Social Class and Stratification: Classic Statements and Theoretical Debates. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield. Marx, K. & Engels, F., 2012. The Communist Manifesto: A Modern Edition. London: Verso. Sreedhar, S., 2010. Hobbes on Resistance: Defying the Leviathan. New York: Cambridge University Press. Turner, B. S., 2002. Max Weber: From History to Modernity. New York: Routledge. Wagner, H., 2002. War and the State: The Theory of International Politics. Michigan: University of Michigan Press. Wanek, A., 2013. The State and Its Enemies in Papua New Guinea. Richmond: Curzon Press. Wardlaw, G., 1989. Political Terrorism: Theory, Tactics and Counter-Measures. New York: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge. Weber, M., 1968. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, New York: Bedminster Press. Whimster, S. & Lash, S., 2006. Max Weber, Rationality and Modernity. Oxon: Routledge.

Hermaphrodite Essays - Gender Studies, Gender, Intersex, Free Essays

Hermaphrodite Essays - Gender Studies, Gender, Intersex, Free Essays Hermaphrodite Intro to Women's Studies Wsp 101 What is a hermaphrodite? The definition that Suzanne Kessler, The writer of Lessons from the Intersexed, gives us is that a true hermaphrodite is where a baby has either testes or ovaries, but the genitals are indistinct. This birth defect has been happening to a small percentage of babies throughout history ( ). A lot of Kessler's essay deals with the interviewing of six medical experts in the field of pediatric intersexuality. They supply the reader with plenty of information on the topic of intersexuality and babies born with ambiguous genitals. Kessler also supplies us with a great deal of information on the process parents have to go through with the diagnosis and the waiting period between knowing whether or not the baby is going to be a boy or girl. In Judith Lorber's essay, Night to His Day: The Social Construction of Gender, she talks about gender and what a man or a women have to do to that is required in their specific gender. Both these essays deal with the idea of choosi ng what sex a child is going to be based on their ambiguous genitals and how their gender will affect them in the society. There are three factors that in this present time that deal with the intersex condition. Two specialists, John Money and Anke A. Ehrhardt, constructed a theory saying that gender identity can be manipulated up to eighteen months of age ( ). People who have been born into the intersex condition, nowadays, have many options to choose from on how to fix the so called problem ( ). Since technology advances everyday, there have been newly discovered ways to perform the surgery to repair the genitals ( ). Feminism also plays a part in the intersex condition. Now, feminists say that if a person has the presence or absence of gonads, it is no longer the only decisive factor for that gender he or she is in ( ). To continue, if a baby is born with ambiguous genitals, then it needs to be assigned a gender as quickly as possible ( ). I agree with that statement because I have a family friend that had to go through the same ordeal and she had to hide the fact that her newborn wasn't assigned a ge nder yet. That is sometimes hard for people to deal with because they want to know whether their baby is a boy or girl. The doctors play a huge role in the choosing of the baby's gender. The parents depend on the doctor for insight on everything because the doctor is the expert. If the doctor doesn't have a quick and comforting answer to the parents question, Is it a boy or a girl? then the parents may feel uncertain and very upset. Therefore the doctor needs to be decisive and unambiguous, so that the parents are settled, their credibility is not questioned and they help keep Money and Ehrhardt's theory valid ( ). I also think that this is a necessity, because its hard enough hearing that your child is neither fully male nor fully female, but if the doctor doesn't know how to deal with it, then who do the parents turn to. If I were in that position, I too would be going crazy, trying to figure out what to do about my child. Its like thinking, Do I want a male or a female child? I would need some assistance in that choice. Keller discusses some things doctors should have not said in post delivery. For example, You have a little boy, but he'll never function as a little boy, so you better raise him as a little girl, ( ). What do the parents say to the family and friends during the time the infant is getting surgery? One of the doctor's told one of the stories she heard, saying that the parents lied and told everyone they had twins, then when they found out the baby's gender, they had told everyone that the other twin had dies ( ). As I was reading this, I had also thought that if I were in that position I would probably do