Evaluating My Life In Light Of Eriksons Psychosoc Essays

Evaluating My Life In Light Of Erikson's Psychosoc Essays Evaluating My Life In Light Of Erikson's Psychosocial Stages Evaluating My Life In Light Of Eriksons Psychosocial Stages I think, over the period involving the first 12 to 18 months of my life, I was able to resolve the first of Eriksons psychosocial stages adequately. My mother, during this time, supplied me with appropriate provisions of food, warmth, and the comfort of physical closeness. This allowed me to understand and accept that objects and people exist even when I could not see them. This was a major stepping stone where the foundation for trust became important. In the next period of my life, from about 18 months to 3 years of age, I was able to resolve the second of Eriksons psychosocial stages adequately. It was around this time that I began to assume important responsibilities for my own self-care like feed myself, using the toilet on my own, and dressing myself. It was during this time also that I began learning many physical skills, including walking and grasping. I learned that I could control my own body and its functions. And that I could make things happen. Eriksons third stage of psychosocial development came between the ages of 3 to 6 years of age. I was continuing to become more assertive and to take more initiative. My mother and my teachers at school encouraged this. I am pretty sure that I was allowed, at least on he weekends (Ha Ha), to choose what I wanted to wear and was allowed to wear whatever I had chosen. In the fourth stage of Eriksons psychosocial development, between 6 and 12 years of age, I was learning to see the relationship between perseverance and the pleasure of a job well done. I was physically and mentally ready to be productive and to do work on my own. I also had many friends at this time and understood what friendship was. I believe that having good friends and peers helped me to be productive and succeed in both school and after school activities. In Eriksons identity vs. role confusion, stage 5, from 12 to 18 years of age, I was gaining a sense of my own identity. I was seeing myself as separate from my parents. Due to the outcome and resolution to conflict in earlier stages I was able to make this transition smoothly. I am currently involved in stage 6, young adulthood, from ages 19 to 40. I believe that I have achieved a healthy intimate relationship with my husband. We are both open to one another and committed to each other. We give and share with one another on a daily basis without wanting or expecting anything in return. Although Eriksons stage7 has a range from 40 to 65 years I believe that I have reconciled many of the issues involved here. Having had my first child 11.5 years ago I have been concerned, and continue to be concerned, with what life will be like for my children when they are grown and have children of their own. I wonder what will be in store for my grandchildren when they are growing old as well. Will the air be clean enough to breathe? Will there be enough food? My goodness there isnt enough food to feed all the people now. Will there be enough room for them to live? Will they be able to support their families? As for Eriksons final stage...I look forward to the day when I can look back on my life with a sense of fulfillment and acceptance of the things that I have done with my life and the lives of my children, grandchildren, etc, etc.... In conclusion, I honestly dont think that I can separate how only three of these stages interact with a later stage. Maybe this was a trick question?! These stages all fit together like building blocks. With one leading directly into the next and building from the previous stage or stages. You need them all to work together, in my opinion, to support each other. I dont think if I was to have left one stage without an adequate resolution I could have moved on to accomplish the next. Could I? No...I really dont see how that would work! Bibliography self reported

How Women Became Part of the 1964 Civil Rights Act

How Women Became Part of the 1964 Civil Rights Act Is there any truth to the legend that women’s rights were included in the United States Civil Rights Act of 1964 as an attempt to defeat the bill? What Title VII Says Title VII of the Civil Rights Act makes it unlawful for an employer: to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The Now-Familiar List of Categories The law prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex and national origin. However, the word â€Å"sex† was not added to Title VII until Rep. Howard Smith, a Democrat from Virginia, introduced it in a one-word amendment to the bill in the House of Representatives in February 1964. Why Sex Discrimination Was Added Adding the word â€Å"sex† to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act ensured that women would have a remedy to fight employment discrimination just as minorities would be able to fight racial discrimination. But Rep. Howard Smith had previously gone on the record as opposing any federal Civil Rights legislation. Did he actually intend for his amendment to pass and the final bill to succeed? Or was he adding womens rights to  the bill so that it would have less chance of success? Opposition Why would legislators who were in favor of racial equality suddenly vote against civil rights legislation if it also prohibited discrimination against women? One theory is that many Northern Democrats who supported a Civil Rights Act to combat racism were also allied with labor unions. Some labor unions had opposed including women in employment legislation. Even some women’s groups had opposed including sex discrimination in the legislation. They feared losing labor laws that protected women, including pregnant women and women in poverty. But did Rep. Smith think that his amendment would be defeated, or that his amendment would pass and then the bill would be defeated? If labor union-aligned Democrats wanted to defeat the addition of â€Å"sex,† would they rather defeat the amendment than vote against the bill? Indications of Support Rep. Howard Smith himself claimed that he genuinely offered the amendment in support of women, not as a joke or an attempt to kill the bill.  Rarely does a congressperson act entirely alone. There are multiple parties behind the scenes even when one person introduces a piece of legislation or an amendment. The National Woman’s Party was behind the scenes of the sex discrimination amendment. In fact, the NWP had been lobbying to include sex discrimination in law and policy for years. Also, Rep. Howard Smith had worked with longtime women’s rights activist Alice Paul, who had chaired the NWP. Meanwhile, the struggle for womens rights was not brand new. Support for the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) had been in the Democratic and Republican Party platforms for years. Arguments Taken Seriously Rep. Howard Smith also presented an argument about what would happen in the hypothetical scenario of a white woman and a black woman applying for a job. If the women encountered employer discrimination, would the black woman rely on the Civil Rights Act while the white woman had no recourse?   His argument indicates that his support for including sex discrimination in the law was genuine, if for no other reason than to protect white women who would otherwise be left out. Other Comments on the Record The issue of sex discrimination in employment was not introduced out of nowhere. Congress had passed the Equal Pay Act in 1963. Furthermore, Rep. Howard Smith had previously stated his interest in including sex discrimination in civil rights legislation. In 1956, the NWP supported including sex discrimination in the purview of the Civil Rights Commission. At that time, Rep. Smith said that if the civil rights legislation he opposed was inevitable, then he â€Å"certainly ought to try to do whatever good with it that we can.†Ã‚  (For more information on Smiths comments and involvement, see Jo Freeman’s â€Å"How Sex Got Into Title VII.†)   Many Southerners were opposed to legislation that forced integration, partly because they believed the federal government was unconstitutionally interfering with states’ rights. Rep. Smith may have adamantly opposed what he saw as federal interference, but he may have also genuinely wanted to make the best of that â€Å"interference† when it did become law. The â€Å"Joke† Although there were reports of laughter on the floor of the House of Representatives at the time Rep. Smith introduced his amendment, the amusement was most likely due to a letter in support of women’s rights that was read aloud. The letter presented statistics about the imbalance of men and women in the U.S. population and called for the government to attend to the â€Å"right† of unmarried women to find a husband. End Results for Title VII and Sex Discrimination Rep. Martha Griffiths of Michigan strongly supported keeping women’s rights in the bill. She led the fight to keep â€Å"sex† in the list of protected classes. The House voted twice on the amendment, passing it both times, and the Civil Rights Act was ultimately signed into law, with its ban on sex discrimination included.  Ã‚   While historians continue to allude to Smith’s Title VII â€Å"sex† amendment as an attempt to defeat the bill, other scholars point out that presumably Congressional representatives have more productive ways to spend their time than inserting jokes into major pieces of revolutionary legislation.