Relating to the topic, my entry is about the 2nd type of hippies. Some of their more radical ideas to preserve/protect “mother earth” include alternative fuel sources (e.g. biofuel) and the removal of elements that they deem to be eco-unfriendly (oil tankers and SUVs). Of course, some of their ideas do work as scientists are beginning to look into biofuel as a cleaner replacement for diesel and petroleum. To date, using 100% biofuels in engines is still highly inefficient. Not that they haven’t tried.

I won’t go into the economic factors of banning Oil tankers and “grow your own food” campaign but I’d like to draw attention to the social issues involved here.

Though hippies do not retain their “carefree” nature in today’s day and age, they are nonetherless still a society with their values norms and cultures. “Burning Man”, one of their celebrated festivals, though commercialised still occurs yearly in Nevada. Their eco-strikes and revolts have also taken a back stage. Now there’re modern hippies, people dedicated to caring for the environment but this time armed with the knowledge and expertise to bring those radical ideas into reality.

Modernity taught them to take more frequent baths and lose their pony tail, but it also brought forth the ability for them to increase awareness for the environment. Many bloggers and forum writers, not born from the “hippie linerage” have nonetherless adopted their ideals (the very idea that nature will provide and thus we should take care of nature) and name as well. Just like how civil society acts as a watchdog for the state in terms of welfare and politics, the “hippies” patrols the borders of environmental policies and have been known to be more vocal in those aspects than their civil society conterparts.

Fundamental hippies have “embraced” nature, where the environmental problems is their problems. Contrary to what we’ve been taught, I’d like to add the hippie perspective into the equation. Not to be confused with spiritists, though some of them may be, protecting the environment is somewhat like a religious ideology or a sense of projected identity.

Ignoring the sociological causes of the Hippie’s behavior towards environment, one can still appreciate the involvement of Hippies throughout histroy in eco-friendly projects and the obstruction to govermental policies that potentially or directly threaten the environment as well. E.g. Clearing of forest for industrialization and legalizing dumping of chemical waste.

Other than those, I return to my initial point of “hippie tech”, technology that have developed from the ideals of the Hippie culture. Modern hippies have tried to apply some of the brilliant thoughts inspired by a moment of “highness”. Thought most of it has been debunked, others paved the way for the discovery of newer forms of energy as well recycling of energy(by-products of energy production)

Take note that hippie tech did not found solar energy, that was more of a “sciencetech”. The harnessing of solar energy is already in use but for Singapore an estimated $67trillion will still be needed in the next 40years on infrastucture alone. Dude, that’s whacked mannnnn….

Hippietech seems to be gaining a higher ground in the race to find renewable energy, Discovery Channel reported a natural salt that could store temperatures up to 400 degrees. Scientist have acknowledge the potential of the salt but the project is still in its initial stages. How it would turn out is yet to be seen. But my question, possibly biased and sounding narrowminded, is why the world insist on spending so much on projects like solar power that costs so much and have so little yield.

One possible answer is the somewhat moral rationalization of the holes in the ozone. It will be terribly ironic if energy harnessed by the sun is used to counter the effects caused by the increase in greenhouse gases and UV rays.

Back to the argument. Cloning is a victim of cultural lag. And also the institute of ethics and morals – which is intertwined with the religious, political, and darn well any other institute you can think of that has been created from an elitist nature. I don’t suppose cloning to be available soon. Unless of course, just like GM food. They are already among us… *spooky sound* and if the percentage was sizable, say, the entire population of China, with their originals already replaced(after natural death of course) then the revelation would possibly be not that surprising. I won’t be surprised if religious elites try to worm their way out of their doctrines and accept the clones…. If God doesn’t destroy us first.
And… What u have been waiting for… (And don’t sue me if the links are down), I’m pretty sure there’s a lot more than I can think of now, but since this isn’t my thesis… NITE~
Movies that have something to do with “Time”.
1.    Time machine, The (2002) http://www.watch-movies.net/movies/the_time_machine/
2.    Back to the future (series). Makes time travel look really cool but still warns us about it. http://www.watch-movies.net/movies/back_to_the_future/    http://www.watch-movies.net/movies/back_to_the_future_part_ii/    http://www.watch-movies.net/movies/back_to_the_future_part_iii/
3.    Ogre (2008) http://www.watch-movies.net/movies/ogre/

Movies that have something to do with “Cloning”.
1.    Aeon Flux http://www.watch-movies.net/movies/aeon_flux/
2.    Idiocracy (2006) RA! But u guys can take it. Not so much as cloning… has elements of time travel too. Kinda. http://movie6.net/movie-/?p=897
3.    The island http://www.watch-movies.net/movies/the_island/

Movies that have something to do with “Control of humans”
1.    Equilibrium (2003) Looks like matrix. http://www.watch-movies.net/movies/equilibrium/
2.    V for Vendetta (2006) http://www.watch-movies.net/movies/v_for_vendetta/
3.    2081 (sorry not out yet) but I promise you… this ROX!
4.    Click (2006) To some extent. http://www.watch-movies.net/movies/click/
5.    A clockwork Orange (1971) As recommended by SA. http://movie6.net/movie-/?p=1043
6.    Suicide Club (2001) http://www.watch-movies.net/movies/suicide_club/
7.    Village, The. (2004) http://www.watch-movies.net/movies/the_village/

Movies that makes sense with my argument.
1.    Artificial Intelligence (2001). http://movie6.net/movie-/?p=880
2.    Wall-e (2008) http://www.watch-movies.net/movies/wall-e/

As industrialization took place in many cities, transforming the landscape, social structure, culture, way of life, one of its effects is in bring large amounts of people from the countryside crowding into the cities in search for work. This was particularly in the 1800s, where the industrial revolution was taking place. The high population density brought about serious problems of overcrowding in the city where most of the buildings were catered for industry. Workers were more concerned about holding on to their jobs than taking “sick leave” – unheard of in those days. Heavy pollution from the industries and insufficient health care facilities, coupled with the lack of health consciousness from the workers themselves, began to see the rise of diseases and deaths.

In the 1900s, health care and mortality rates began to improve, largely due to safer housing, higher standards of living and medical advances. The structure of the city began to change, parks and museums began to sprout. Rather than a place of work and money, the city became home to the workers. The city provided schools for the children and opportunities for the men and later women on the economic ladder.

The advancement in medicine and healthcare and its obvious improvements to the general level of health shaped the thinking of many about illnesses. And thus emerged the medical model.

1.Diseases arise from a biological breakdown within the individual.
2.Diseases have specific causes (like viruses) which can be located.
3.The focus of attention is, therefore, upon the body of the ill person, rather than on general well-being.
4.The correct response to illness, therefore, is treatment within a medical environment and/or through pharmaceuticals.
5.Treatment is ‘scientifically neutral’; that is, free of value judgements. (Hart, 1985)

It is easy to see the possible flaws within the model. Even in its breakdown it denounced the effects of well-bring on the health of the individual. In the past lectures we have covered stratification of income groups and ethnic groups. Even these are related to health issues. From statistics, the rich generally enjoy a better state of health than the poor. It becomes so obvious when the diseases and medical conditions like Kwashiorkor that are common experience of life in poor countries are virtually unheard of among the rich. Children in Africa are starving while American’s are curing their mental ‘health’ with plastic surgery and steroids.

Curiously enough, it is scientifically proven that diseases do affect members of a particular ethnic group more than others. Drugs for treatment also varies across the ethnic lines. Arguably, it is not because of racial discrimination where cheaper lousier drugs are given to the darker skinned but medically proven that there must be separate treatments. Perhaps sociologists shouldn’t be too quick to judge, we can be ethnocentric too. Of course, in our own defence, we can bring up the issue of nature and nurture where the “biological changes” are socially affected by our upbringing and thus a particular society, rather than ethnic group, are more prone to different types of diseases. A study suggested that the high risk of stroke among afro-carribeans are likely due to the lack of rick-awareness, cultural and lifestyle influences, time restrictions and language difficulties, all of which are social factors. Point for Sociology.

The medical model failed to understand and factor in elements from one’s social environment that could affect one’s health. Stress from supervisors, poor working conditions, poor living conditions, even lack of education on nutritious living – Macdonald culture. What we’re taught to eat and what is available to eat within our reach is a social contribution of our health. In the States, 65% of its population is overweight which is mainly contributed to the availability of fatty foods. The portrayal of skinny models and actors only seem to alleviate a fraction of this health problem.

What we deem as health problems are also questionable. A contagious skin disease, called yaws, was so common among Saharan Africa that the people thought it was normal. The dangers of smoking was not realized until a few decades back. Till now it has become a gigantic hoohah.
A more personal way to look at it would be this example. A student would ignore signs of illnesses on the eve of the holidays but most likely not hesitate to coax a medical excuse from the doctor before a quiz or exam (big generalization, but u get the idea).

This leads me to the issue of how medical conditions and illnesses are actually determined. Many health problems are not caused by evolving viruses and mutating germs but have nonetheless made itself known as a important aspect of today’s society. Take dentistry for example, my dentist insist my overbite is a major health problem and I’ve thus far spent around SGD$2800 to “cure it”. It is still “healing”. In the past, crooked teeth are ignored. Pirates will a full set of teeth are considered to be wusses. The birth of dentistry came about when the concept of a “normal mouth” was derived, just like the notions of “normal table manners” and “normal bedtime timings” All these are socially created “norms”, each backed by powerful social institutions. Mental illnesses like schizophrenia are also contrary to the socially agreed “normal behavior”. Conversely, smoking would never been deemed as a health threat if 1)science never proved it, and 2) Institutions never emphasized it. The shorter life-span and weaker physique would just be deemed a normal condition just like yaws. In fact, the “benefits” to smoking, relief from stress and “coolness” would be prevalent if more powerful institutions instituted smoking as a “cure” for “loserness”.

Throwing aside the hypothetical example, this concept can be seen from the issue of FGM, or female genital mutilation. The naming of this condition is already a sociological derived bias. Within the boundaries where it is practiced, even still today (Nigeria, Togo, Somalia, Egypt, Africa, Middle East), these practices have powerful institutions supporting it. It is heavily rooted in tradition and religion and even as the practice may spell death to the woman, she chooses it over the stigmata she would otherwise face.

Health, diseases, illnesses, its propagation and its treatment are all social factors. This allows us to reflect and discover that many health related issues are like i’ve mentioned, socially created and instilled. This makes me look stupid for spending money to correct an almost unnoticeable overbite, since my dentist has made a bundle for “curing” me of an “illness” that doesn’t really harm me in any way. However, it is difficult to go against the social norms and rules of having a perfect smile. One that I would go month after month to a painful session with the dentist. I am, after all, one member of the institute that instills the notion of conformity by a perfect smile.

I discovered something similar to Urbanization, but perhaps in a more micro form. Its research is extensive and I suppose we might have it as a HS103 lecture topic in years to come. Without further ado, I present: Gentrification – An introduction.

Gentrification, also known as “inner-city” revitalization (Ley 1986) is considered to be one of the results of urbanization and its effects is similar to the urban sprawl (What is sprawl? n.d.). However, instead of movement from the urban to the rural areas, gentrification is the movement of members of higher income groups into the lower income areas.

Generally as the more affluent make their way into these lower-class areas, demographic changes take place. Coupled with the efforts of the government to improve the infrastructure and standard of living, money began to pour into these inner-cities. This resulted in lower crime rates, increased property prices and better provision of public institutes like hospitals, schools and police stations. Smith (1987) explains the movement with the rent-gap theory.

The rent-gap theory is essentially a production-side theory. It suggests that investors move in when they see that greater profit can be made if the existing land was put to better use. Which would include building of luxury housing and malls. As newer houses were built, the property prices in that neighbourhood rose. The lower classed who generally rent instead of owned houses had to contend with rising rents, passed on by the landlords who had to face increasing property taxes or face eviction. Landlords were forced to renovate (so as not to hamper the increase in property values) or sell the houses to the investors.

Contrary to Smith, Ley (1986) came up with a consumption-side theory in which as the lower class gradually became middle class they improved the economy in that area. And when that occurs, the landlords tap into the market where there is demand from the upperclass to buy up the improved sites thus forcing out the original tenants.

In both discourses, gentrification only seems to affect the middle/working class renters where they have little power to maintain their housing arrangements. However, as this means that the upperclass has come in closer contact with the middle class, it triggers an inequality problem. The proximity multiplied the effect of stratification, both economical and social.

From an economist standpoint, this is a general growth of the economy. But what of the lower income who now found themselves helpless, trying to support the rent or those homeless. There are 3 spheres here. The urban, dominated by the rich, the suburbs whom the rich have found their way into due to the urban sprawl, and finally the inner-cities, which are now being taken over. Ousted from each sphere, the lower class have found themselves with no where to go.

The victims have taken it upon themselves to form groups to fight against gentrification. They used methods ranging from court hearings, protests and even arson. But just like urbanization, all they did was slow down the process by a little.

Both urbanization and gentrification are unstoppable social movements, just as achieving democracy was assumed to be the natural movement of the political sphere. Both brings stratification to the social classes. As always, there are pros and cons to any social change. But are we doomed to combat the cons after they have appeared? It certainly seems so. But perhaps the government itself, who ought to be concerned about the social problems arising had other plans in mind?

In Zukin(1989)’s book, Loft Living, she introduced a peculiar situation where capitalists would actually encourage the middle class to move into certain areas by subsidized rents or offer low interest rate loans.  The middle class would raise the property values that would entice the upper class to come in. Whether or not it was the government’s objective to promote gentrification and therefore raise tax revenue and reap greater economic growth is uncertain. It is easy for them to make the moral claim that they were trying to raise the standard of living for those in the inner cities. However, it can be said that even as the government helps such inner cities through policies such as tax increment financing (TIF), gentrification is possible, especially in a capitalistic urbanized economy.

References

Ley, D. 1986 “Alternative Explanations for Inner-City Gentrification: A Canadian Assessment”. Pp.
521-535. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 76, No. 4. America: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. on behalf of the Association of American Geographers

Lupton, B. n.d. “Everyday Life: Gentrification With Justice” Retrieved October 17, 2008. (http://sites.silaspartners.com/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID323422|CHID664014|CIID2235910,00.html)

Smith, N. 1987. “Gentrification and the rent-gap”. Pp. 462–465. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 77, No. 3. America: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. On behalf of the Association of American Geogrpahers

“What is Sprawl?” n.d. What is Sprawl? Retrieved October 16, 2008. (http://www.sprawlcity.org/hbis/wis.html)

Zukin, S. 1982. Loft Living: Culture and Capital in urban change. Rutgers University Press.

Zukin, S. 1987. “Gentrification: Culture and Capital in the Urban Core.” Pp. 129-147. Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 13.

The identity reference I used was Race – which was essentially how I came to my conclusion that she was Malay; her facial features, physical build (we were dancing), accent were all quite similar to a Malay. My source of reference came from an ex-girlfriend who was a Malay. My attraction to Malays did not cloud my judgement.

The idea of race is a generated one. Before globalization began – or perhaps the time when crossing borders were possible – there was only ethnicity. And even then the term itself didn’t exist. It was till one man saw another, that was so unlike him, speaking a different language, sporting a different “look”, practicing a different “culture” that there was a basis of comparison. Ideologies began to develop – ethnicity, race and the eventual development of racism.

Through stereotyping, I had concluded that she was a Muslim. I’d like to point out that I was not racist towards Muslims, much less Malays. However, my notion of her heritage caused me to have less physical contact with her, out of respect for her faith (religion). Actions like mine which have been influenced by ideologies does not just stop there. In history, there were many instances of such situations, many of which the effects can still be felt.

The most infamous example of racism would probably be Hitler’s conquest to make Germany the most powerful western nation and more importantly, his personal war with the Jews. Many said that he his personal “hatred” of the Jews was what drove him on. Another example, one that is colored with the effects of identity as well as globalization is the long and bloody fight between the Israelis and the Pakistanis. Till now, the tension and fighting still continues. Having the fight against terrorism thrown into the equation did not help either.

To a sociologist, Terrorism, of which to date there are many different forms – Narcoterrorism, ecoterrorism, Christian terrorism etc, all have one underlying similarity. My definition of it is the retaliation of a group of people who have a common heritage, e.g  a history of oppression, but have insufficient power to meet their goals in the way deemed acceptable by/to their oppressors. Thus, they resort to terrorizing. Cheap but powerful.

Now, terrorism has, in some way, ties to religion. Since the attack on the world trade center and the pentagon and the surface of the word Jihad, the skepticism and panic increased increasingly.  First, people who are suspected to have ties to Osama Bin Laden were arrested and interrogated, then the Muslims were met with suspicion. That suspicion crossed borders when terrorists networks revealed itself have cells in many parts of the world. People began to suspect their neighbors who wore traditional Malay garbs. The situation finally escalated to the point where anyone who were from a middle eastern state(heritage) or “looked” Malay(race) or practiced Islam(religion) were suspected to be a terrorist.

In almost everything that happens in the world today that relates to human resources have underlying connections to these socially created ideologies. Despite knowing this, it is still sometimes easier to conform and do as we have been socialized to do. Otherwise I might have french-kissed my dance partner, provoking her war-cry and the destruction of the entire Nanyang House. Fortunately, like I mentioned, she’s vietnamese and there was absolutely no way she had bombs strapped to her petite frame.

References:

Sernau, Scott (2006). Global Problems: Chapter 7, Democracy and Human Rights. United States of America: Pearson Education Inc.

Hannah, D.R. Democracy: Singapore – Democratic or Authoritarian? Retrieved 1st October, 2008 from http://ruthhannahdas.wordpress.com/2008/09/23/democracy-singapore-%E2%80%93-democratic-or-authoritarian/

Powell, Colin L. Powell on CNN: Iraqi People Want and Deserve Democracy. Retrieved 1st October, 2008 from http://malaysia.usembassy.gov/wf/wf0410_powell.html

Thus, religion is now central to global politics, which used to be characterized by secularism. It can be destructive, threaten the balance of world power, and possibly be the core of the next large-scale global war. Interfaith dialogue is still in its nascent stages, and significant efforts on the part of religious leaders and governments in promoting religious tolerance and clamping down on extremism are necessary in order for people of different religions to peacefully coexist and thereby prevent devastating battles of religion.

The above is Rachel’s conclusion on her entry “The Religious Schism”. With all due respect to her and to advocates of such conclusions, I’d like to approach the issue of religion and its effects on the world from a different standpoint. A more positive one. And perhaps in simpler English.

First of all, I do agree that much of war is centered on religion. However, rather than being the cause of war and its driving factor, religion was just an innocent bystander. Hitler, fueled by his rage that jews – being more hardworking – were taking jobs from the germans performed one of the largest genocides of all time. The fact that Judaism teaches jews to treat working as worshiping God and thus holy became the reason war consumed them. Note that the jews at that time did not fight back. There was no cause for violence to be wrought on them.

The war on terrorism is something men, who declare themselves on the side of good should be advocating. The terrorists that the US presidents are yapping about are not men or organizations or countries that bear great offensive power. Rather, we claim that why terrorists are so scary, are because they terrorize. How does a few beheadings and suicide bombings compare to the terrors Singapore faced during its Japanese occupation or the Tiananmen square incident on June Fourth. The size and magnitude of terror overtips the scale. Terrorists just want something to go their way. Just like the US wanted the war to end by dropping the first Atomic Bomb. Only the small get labelled as terrorists.

More importantly, such fanatic actions that the terrorists have displayed are “as a result of their religious notions” and they claim it as such, terms like Jihad and the restoration of the Sharia law. These would be the beliefs of Osama Bin Laden. He, like Hitler, was also an anti-jewish, his claim being: These Jews are masters of usury and leaders in treachery. They will leave you nothing, either in this world or the next (1). Take away the fancy language and the base reasons are the same, Jews work harder.

At least modern men had the sense not to label all muslims as terrorists and start incarcerating them or worse. We began to think that he misinterpreted the Qur’an or started his own neo-islam. The danger only started when he could get the rest of the muslim community to see the way he did, much like how Bush got the US to support him in invading Iraq. No one thought that osama could be mad. Some people in US might have “said so” but not in the mentally unstable way.

Serial murderers that have been “clinically proven” to be “mentally unstable” get lighter sentences to their crimes. Why label it as the effects of religion when it could just have been a couple of mad men who were brought up wrong?

More often than not, we have our own religious views. Even atheists have their views on religion. I argue that it is not so much as what religion teaches, but how we men and our mindsets stubbornly choose to believe that lets religion make its mark on headlines. Just as we have centered wars and violence to be the cause of religious differences, isn’t religion just a sort of social upbringing? Aren’t the wars between the protestants and catholics started and persisted because of differing views? The same for violence between the different ethnic groups? Not only is classifying it as a religious war wrong, but to say that religion is the cause and drive for people to go to war is ignoring that there may be an underlying root cause of such wars. Osama’s terroristic tactics may use the muslim faith to rally the people, but it is his and his general’s ideals that promoted the strikes against the world.

Contrary and akin to Osama and Hitler, Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi were men of faith. Why was so little credit given to the values of their faith in the work they have done? In my opinion and conclusion, Martin Luther and Ghandi are the proper examples to use in seeing how religion is central to global politics.

References

(1) Messages, (2005), p.190. from 53-minute audiotape that “was circulated on various websites.” dated Feb. 14, 2003. “Among a Band of Knights.”

Additional References

Rachel Chan(2008): War and Violence: The Religious Schism, Referenced on 180908 from:

http://rachelchan.wordpress.com/2008/09/12/war-and-violence-the-religious-schism/

War: Religious views of war, Referenced on 180908 from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/war/religious/holywar.shtml

Religion and War, Referenced on 180908 from: http://lass.calumet.purdue.edu/cca/mgv/Social_Issues/Religion/rel_war.html

Ben Hughes (2007): Religion and War: Why People Link Them Together So Closely, Referenced on 180908 from: http://religiousintolerance.suite101.com/article.cfm/religion_and_war

]]> http://wong0563.wordpress.com/2008/09/18/war-and-terrorism-my-comments/feed/ 0 wong0563 http://wong0563.wordpress.com/2008/09/11/crimes-war-crimes-and-the-geneva-conventions/ http://wong0563.wordpress.com/2008/09/11/crimes-war-crimes-and-the-geneva-conventions/#comments Thu, 11 Sep 2008 14:48:56 +0000 wong0563 http://wong0563.wordpress.com/?p=14 ]]> Perfidy, one of the most morally and outrageous ‘crimes’ to be committed during a War. Thanks goodness for such laws as article 37 of the Geneva Conventions which protects our men from the cunning of our enemies. Every other war-crime that has been committed have in some way or another violated the Geneva Conventions. It is the Law of War, similar to the law we would have to face if we had committed a crime such as shoplifting.
Crimes, any crime in fact,  is punishable by the law. Many countries have different laws. A murderer may face the death penalty in one country, get imprisoned for life in another or perhaps even go scott free. Thus, crime is not defined by the law but rather by what is against the moral consciousness of the majority of people within the boundaries that the law has jurisdiction over. This means, the law itself is a form of institution set up by men to look after the interest of themselves. The jurisdiction (area of effectiveness) becomes a representation of how powerful the creators of that law (institution) is.
Sociologists have studies the effects of social institutions on society, both positive and most of the time negative, leading to inequalities and oppression of the weak. Here is the kicker. Who are the weak in war? The members of the Geneva Conventions’1′ should be the ones to gain yes? As of August 2nd 2006, all 194 nations in the world have signed the Geneva Conventions’2′, thus becoming the first and only institution to be accepted and protected by the entire world. Of course, one can argue that it is the powerful in each nation that makes the decision to adopt the Conventions while its poor and ignorant have no say in the matter. However, even as the ‘laws’ are forced upon them, these laws conform to the social and moral norms of the vast majority including most of these poor who have, more often than not, been the victims of war-crimes. As for the obscure few who have never been victims would probably never understand the need for such an institution but would probably regret later.
The design and laws of the Geneva Conventions, particularly the parts pertaining to war crimes, are therefore, I boldly conclude, not in the interest of the powerful. In fact, to back up my point, the latest Geneva Conventions (add-on) is not welcomed by the United States and Great Britain, particularly because it allows the terrorists groups to have the protection of the ‘rules’ while avoiding the binding factors of the “rules” ’3′.
Though United States is still bound in some way under the Geneva Conventions up to the 2nd last ‘add-on’, signed and ratified, they and other countries like Japan, Iraq and Great Britain have on multiple counts violated the Geneva Conventions. Innocent till proven guilty, President George Bush tried to avoid the Conventions by his military order issued Nov 13th 2001 in light of the Sept 11th events’4′. And I quote, emphasis added: “that it is not practicable to apply in military commissions under this order the principles of law and the rules of evidence generally recognized in the trial of criminal cases in the United States district courts.”
Has institutions failed to protect the powerful and prolong inequality as we’ve learnt? Or,  considering the humane effects it has in wars preventing war-crimes and more, the definition could have changed? Could it be that we have managed to create an institution that protects everyone, transcending color, age, religion and any other social differentiation. Or perhaps, that the Geneva Conventions was never a social institution? If it isn’t, what is it?

References

1. The Red Cross: Geneva Conventions. Retrieved on (110908) from: http://www.redcross.lv/en/conventions.htm

2. Jpost (2006): Last two countries sign Geneva Conventions. Retrieved (110908) from: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1154525916677 and ICRC: International Humanitarian Law – Treaties & Documents. Retrieved (120908) from: http://www.cicr.org/ihl.nsf/CONVPRES?OpenView

3. Mad_Dog_Fargo (2001): Geneva Conventions. Retrieved (110908) from: http://everything2.com/title/geneva%2520convention

4. George W. Bush (2001): President Issues Military Order – Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism  (2001). Retrieved (110908) from: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011113-27.html

Some will argue of course that a homemaker is not really considered a job, but, as we are examining the roles of each gender, one needs to look past the definition of jobs- where one puts in an amount of work which is repaid by wages, and concentrate instead, on the roles we have separated for men and for women. Carrying on, we’ve also seen numerous sociologists, psychologist and great thinkers go to great lengths about how roles have merged, switched and even been changed: where some roles have lost their purpose and new roles have emerged, according to how they are needed in the society.

Other than the roles and responsibilities of genders, there’s also the difference in rights between the genders. The term cultural lag is useful for this point. Even as we consider ourselves in the modern age, we are still able to see the existence of male dominance where women in those society play a oppressed role. In no way are the roles small or insignificant, each playing a great role in the running of the cogwheels of that society. What I mean by oppressed is that the roles and the amount of rights for women have been defined by the other gender.

In the fantasy world of comics, there are the existence of groups of women known as amazons. A clan of women who are not under the dominance of men and have in many artist’s perverse scripting, hunt and dominate men for reasons of procreation. Others, such as the priestess who worshiped the Gods in greek mythology also had such standing though it was less procreation but almost as much filth to the dirty male mind.  Anthropologist who have studied the real existence of such amazons claimed such societies never lasted very long. Wonder why. A short answer would be that the men were all hiding.

There’s hardly any need to emphasize the roles, responsibilities and rights of women in this modern age since we can easily see for ourselves. But here’s my point, keeping in mind the change that has occurred from the past till present, what will be next? We all know, with much confidence that the 3rd world nations who are still experiencing the cultural lag will in the future ‘become’ like us. But for us, who are the leaders in development, where changes in culture are influenced by what we do, what, in the context of gender roles, will happen to us?

The age of the feministic movement is almost over. Governments that are still over-represented by men have begun to show more ‘respect’ for women. In fact, in most states women are given more respect and benefits than men. E.g The law is favors women in custody, rape, abuse cases.. Men and women have come to a somewhat stable consensus to the extent of roles. But will this stability last? Or is there a real stability? Is there truly a balance or were women just fighting for what they saw men have rather than a true balance to roles and more rights. Could it be just jealousy and that what women even now in the modern society have only managed to achieve is but to overthrow the men?

Some roles are better suited to men than women. Is this view correct? Assuming it is, society is functioning ineffectively, where women stubbornly stay in the roles much better handled by men and men are displaced to take-over the roles of women. Assuming it isn’t, does that mean we’ve reached a “utopian” state of the distribution of gender roles?