taylorgenre5

[] [] Essay A major change that has occurred in the Western family is an increased incidence in divorce. Whereas in the past, divorce was a relatively rare occurrence, in recent times it has become quite commonplace. This change is borne out clearly in census figures. For example thirty years ago in Australia, only one marriage in ten ended in divorce; nowadays the figure is more than one in three (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1996: p.45). A consequence of this change has been a substantial increase in the number of single parent families and the attendant problems that this brings (Kilmartin, 1997). An important issue for sociologists, and indeed for all of society, is why these changes in marital patterns have occurred. In this essay I will seek to critically examine a number of sociological explanations for the 'divorce phenomenon' and also consider the social policy implications that each explanation carries with it. It will be argued that the best explanations are to be found within a broad socio-economic framework. One type of explanation for rising divorce has focused on changes in laws relating to marriage. For example, Bilton, Bonnett and Jones (1987) argue that increased rates of divorce do not necessarily indicate that families are now more unstable. It is possible, they claim, that there has always been a degree of marital instability. They suggest that changes in the law have been significant, because they have provided unhappily married couples with 'access to a legal solution to pre-existent marital problems' (p.301). Bilton et al. therefore believe that changes in divorce rates can be best explained in terms of changes in the legal system. The problem with this type of explanation however, is that it does not consider why these laws have changed in the first place. It could be argued that reforms to family law, as well as the increased rate of divorce that has accompanied them, are the product of more fundamental changes in society. Another type of explanation is one that focuses precisely on these broad societal changes. For example, Nicky Hart (cited in Haralambos, 1995) argues that increases in divorce and marital breakdown are the result of economic changes that have affected the family. One example of these changes is the raised material aspirations of families, which Hart suggests has put pressure on both spouses to become wage earners. Women as a result have been forced to become both homemakers and economic providers. According to Hart, the contradiction of these two roles has lead to conflict and this is the main cause of marital breakdown. It would appear that Hart's explanation cannot account for all cases of divorce - for example, marital breakdown is liable to occur in families where only the husband is working. Nevertheless, her approach, which is to relate changes in family relations to broader social forces, would seem to be more probing than one that looks only at legislative change. The two explanations described above have very different implications for social policy, especially in relation to how the problem of increasing marital instability might be dealt with. Bilton et al. (1995) offer a legal explanation and hence would see the solutions also being determined in this domain. If rises in divorce are thought to be the consequence of liberal divorce laws, the obvious way to stem this rise is to make them less obtainable. This approach, one imagines, would lead to a reduction in divorce statistics; however, it cannot really be held up as a genuine solution to the problems of marital stress and breakdown in society. Indeed it would seem to be a solution directed more at symptoms than addressing fundamental causes. Furthermore, the experience of social workers, working in the area of family welfare suggests that restricting a couple's access to divorce would in some cases serve only to exacerbate existing marital problems (Johnson, 1981). In those cases where violence is involved, the consequences could be tragic. Apart from all this, returning to more restrictive divorce laws seems to be a solution little favoured by Australians. (Harrison, 1990). Hart (cited in Haralambos, 1995), writing from a Marxist-feminist position, traces marital conflict to changes in the capitalist economic system and their resultant effect on the roles of men and women. It is difficult to know however, how such an analysis might be translated into practical social policies. This is because the Hart program would appear to require in the first place a radical restructuring of the economic system. Whilst this may be desirable for some, it is not achievable in the present political climate. Hart is right however, to suggest that much marital conflict can be linked in some way to the economic circumstances of families. This is borne out in many statistical surveys which show consistently that rates of divorce are higher among socially disadvantaged families (McDonald, 1993). This situation suggests then that social policies need to be geared to providing support and security for these types of families. It is little cause for optimism however, that in recent years governments of all persuasions have shown an increasing reluctance to fund social welfare programs of this kind. It is difficult to offer a comprehensive explanation for the growing trend of marital breakdown; and it is even more difficult to find solutions that might ameliorate the problems created by it. Clearly though, as I have argued in this essay, the most useful answers are to be found not within a narrow legal framework, but within a broader socio-economic one. Finally, it is worth pointing out that, whilst we may appear to be living in a time of increased family instability, research suggests that historically, instability may have been the norm rather than the exception. As Bell and Zajdow (1997) point out, in the past, single parent and step families were more common than is assumed - although the disruptive influence then was not divorce, but the premature death of one or both parents. This situation suggests that in studying the modern family, one needs to employ a historical perspective, including the possibility of looking to the past in searching for ways of dealing with problems in the present. ** __ Characteristics __ ** Introduction Body Conclusion Factual/opinion 1st/3rd person Has to have a topic Thesis Topic sentence ** __ Criteria __ ** Formal Examples to back up topic Intro has to catch attention Conclusion has to sum the topic up    Body supports topic Thesis tells points covering **__m__****__y example__** Autism: Is There a True Cause? Autism is a developmental disability that effect children within the first three years of their lives. It affects the social, emotional, and language skills to different levels. Today, there is an unknown cause for this disability. Even though there might not be a true cause, there are still some possibilities to set off autism. A few ways children can get autism are genetically, from the environment, and from having other disorders. First, it is shown that autism can be genetic. If a parent has an autistic child and is expecting another child, it is likely that the second child will have autism. Researchers are trying to find the genetic code that can set off this disorder, but so far it’s still a mystery. One disorder that has to do with genetics is Rett syndrome. This disorder only occurs in girls because it is a mutation of an X chromosome. Children who have Rett syndrome only acquire this because their parents have autism, a learning disability, or mental retardation. Another example of a genetic disorder is Fragile X syndrome. This is similar to Rett syndrome because it is caused by a mutated gene. This is form of mental retardation that is inherited and passed down from generation to generation. Also, autism is affected by the brain. The only thing researchers can find is that a person with autism has abnormalities in the brain and that body part doesn’t development the way it’s supposed to. Another factor for possibly causing autism is from the environment. One way our surroundings set this off is from exposure to mercury. In the past, thermometers were made from mercury. If someone were to put it in their mouths, they were getting all the toxins and could eventually get them sick. Also, some viruses can lead to the disorder. When your body has a metabolic impairment, it can’t fight and get rid of the bad bacteria and it can go to your brain and cause major damage. There is also a debate that vaccines given at birth has something to do with autism. Some people think this is a good reason because newborns get about four shots when they first enter the world. All the different vaccines help them prevent form getting sick, but with all of them exposing the baby at one time, they could mix in a way that doctors don’t want them to. With this being said, the vaccines won’t help fight off the viruses and then this goes back to having a metabolic impairment. But, no one can agree on the immunization situation. They don’t think this causes autism, but until they can prove it wrong, it can be a possibility. Lastly, other medical conditions don’t help children and adults escape from autism. Many of the medical conditions have the same sign and/or symptoms of autism. One type of condition is tuberous sclerosis. Tuberous sclerosis is a genetic disorder that can create tumors in the eyes, kidneys, and skin, just to give a few. Many of these people can have mental retardation or autism. One other condition that people receive in addition to autism is cerebral dysgenesis. This is an abnormal brain development which is very rare.  In conclusion, there are many possibilities that can cause autism, but the main reason is still a mystery. All of these factors link together and contribute to this high rising disorder. Although autism rates are increasing each year, some researchers say that parents will call their children autistic just because they will show some symptoms that characterizes it.