Vanity Fair & Male Vanity Essay Example for Free

Vanity Fair Male Vanity Essay Through the course of history as gender relates to either sex, the flamboyance of either gender is dependent upon culture. The male birds of the Amazon are typically more colorful than their female counterparts, and their mating dance is very unique in its structure, and the female for her part does not have to ‘go through the loops’ of such ritual as the male does. This is true for other animals as well from the battle of rams to the dolphin fights in the ocean; the importance of strength and beauty has dominated the sexual history of animals. This is also true for the human race, and in no other culture and time in history as in the Victorian culture is the human male more ‘colorful’ than the female. The idea of vanity as it is expressed in Vanity Fair will be explored throughout this essay. William Makepeace Thackeray explores this concept in his characters and how vanity, or the ‘color’ of the male gender in the Victorian culture, is the motif of everyday living for such protagonists. This idea will be presented in this essay will textual support from Vanity Fair as well as Laura George’s article The Emergence of the Dandy and Russell A. Fraser’s Pernicious Casuistry: A Study of Character in Vanity Fair. Throughout the course of the novel, Thackeray employs the recurrent theme of the â€Å"dandy† or as George states, â€Å"†¦sparks, fops, beaux, swells, coxcombs, popinjays, macaroni, butterflies†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (George 2), a term that can be used to describe â€Å"men who aspire to be genteel. † The dandy was envisioned by a man who went by the name of George Beau Brummell, as George states, â€Å"†¦Brummell frequently represented all that was abjected by modern masculinity: love of fashion, of fabric, of the shape and cut of one’s clothes. Brummell himself bore a complex relationship to the emerging regime of masculine fashionable austerity† (George 1). By focusing upon this concept of the dandy and the effects it can have upon an individual’s personality, Thackeray decides to focus upon his male characters, Joseph Sedley and George Osborne, in particular. While the other characters within the novel are capable of accepting whatever amount of dandyism they might have, it is these two characters that remain transfixed upon their ability to maintain being dandy, which ultimately lead them to their unfortunate deaths. They were too consumed with thoughts about appearance both physically and socially to the extent it affected their ability to function in the world of â€Å"Vanity Fair†. In other words, these characters are seen being prime examples of how Thackeray’s novel is concerned with how each â€Å"character’s presentation will determine their success or failure†. Soon after Thackeray introduces his readers to the world of Vanity Far, the reader learns too quickly that these characters belonging to the middle class aspire to be part of the aristocracy hence the role of the dandy coming into play. It has often been said that the â€Å"aristocratic dandies, is at once a unique person- the model of dandyhood for all time- an embodiment of a common middle-class fantasy of aristocratic distinction† ( Cole, 137), which is why we see many of Thackeray’s characters constantly finding opportunities to better themselves, and their rank in society. Sir Rawdon Crawley, for example, was the one of few characters belonging to the aristocracy and was happily willing to give it up when he married Miss Rebecca Sharp. In the passage, â€Å"By these attentions, the veteran rake, Rawdon Crawley, found himself coveted into a very happy submissive married man† (191) indicates that while Joseph Sedley and George Osborne would be unhappy had they lost their rank in society, Thackeray illustrates at how some people are content with the simpler things in life, things not involving money. The dandy or in the case of Vanity Fair, Sedly and Osborne were distracted by other things in life, despite their apparent unimportance to livelihood and more to do with ambiance, as George states of the dandy (and as it illustrates the dandy’s vanity in Thackeray’s novel); There are traces of the man of fashion as ‘thing’ usage earlier, but the habit seems to coalesce around the time of the Restoration, and for good reason. Throughout the tumultuous seventeenth century, the relations between masculinity and fashion were violently contested, as the various Stuart courts were accused of conspicuous consumption, luxury, and effeminacy (along with a regrettable tendency to belive in their own divine rights); as Puritans pointed to the theological meanings of clothes; as domestic texatile manufactourers (as opposed to traders) sought an economic voice; and as the stakes and status of imported fabrics changed. It was in this context, as David Kuchta has argues, that Charles II adopted the three piece suit as the new sartorial model for masculinity (George 4) Joseph Sedley is the epitome of a dandy in Thackeray’s novel, and he illustrates of each of these points made by George. It seems that the gaining of wealth is the main preoccupation of the characters in Thackeray’s novel, and it was with the dandy that this wealth was displayed best to the public. Joseph Sedley’s nickname in the novel is ‘Waterloo Sedley’ because of his uncanny obsession with the Duke of Wellington. It seems that throughout the novel, Joseph Sedley, attaches himself to nobility purely on the grounds of their nobility as he relates himself with Lord Tapeworm despite his impecunious state merely because he is a lord. Joseph Sedley pays extra attention to his appearance, more so than the pages describing the women getting prepared to go out. In all, the essence of a dandy is one whose ego is larger than his humility and this is exceedingly true for Joseph Sedley as he does not concern himself with other’s judgments (except if they are noble) and eats and drinks and parties in a constant orgy around London (when he is in London). He does not like military life and is said to quaver at the sound of a canon at one point in the novel. Joseph Sedley fears any authority figure who could cut him down in front of nobility (such as his father) and he only pays attention to his own appearance and not to any politics, or other socially engaging conversation. Also, Joseph Sedley’s egoism is so large and his dandy state corresponds to this that he does not change throughout the course of the novel. Joseph Sedley believes that his state of being is appropriate and he is happy being who and what he is to care to change. It is through this fault of being a dandy and having such a large ego and such a selfish personality that Becky is able to ensnare him into marriage. With Rawdon Crawley’s rejection of the aristocratic ideal, Thackeray uses this to portray the idea of the dandy being solely a middle-class virtue. It appears that this â€Å" flamboyant aristocratic model of the eighteenth century was gradually rejected and supplanted by a restored and virtuous† (Reed) high class, which is why characters like Lord Steyne can still be considered dandy without sacrificing their own ideals; even though, he tries to exude his fantasies of Rebecca. Again, none of his actions can be compared to those of George Osborne. For example, when Dobbin publicly embarrasses George about the lack of affection he has towards his fiancee Amelia, George decides to prove his affections by purchasing a gift for his dear Amelia. Although George’s act of kindness is provoked as a gesture to prove his feelings for Amelia to the ever judgmental William Dobbin, he still decides to pursue what Thackeray displays as being a mockery of the middle-class gentleman. A true gentleman would not need to borrow money from his friend as George is seen doing when deciding to buy Amelia’s gift, to a man he is already trying to prove himself. George’s inability to conjure up the sufficient funds indicates his lack of knowledge of what it means to be dandy. In order to truly exude the essence of being a dandy, the use of flamboyance displayed in clothing as well as a countenounce of style must be utilized, which it seems George lacks as his countenance is spurred by jealousy and a certain essence of revenge and a little pride in his buying Amelia a gift, not as a dandy would buy a gift for the purpose of sharing their flamboyance but more to prove another man wrong, which is more ‘white-collar’ than noble (as the nobility in the definition of the dandy was the main element in society they wanted to portray). Here it seems that George, in the analogy of the animal kingdom and the male having to display his power and beauty in order to waylay other men from taking his choice in female, George is truly playing the part of the dominant male. Thus, his definition of a dandy may be split in half. His actions speak towards being too masculine and paying too much attention to the jealousy and revenge and pride in his nature on how much he loves his girl, while the other part of him is paying strict attention to his dandy nature in him buying her a gift in order to win her affections, thus ‘dancing’ for her. However it is in his intentions with the gift that George can most decidedly not be a dandy. In order to have a true lack of definition of a dandy to apply to George Osborne, a more thorough review of the main definition of a dandy is needed, as George writes, Anxieties about young sparks selling land in order to waste money on the transitory notions of fashion date at least to the Renaissance, but in the wake of the Puritan Commonwealth and in the midst of concern about Stuart affiliations with the French court, the political stakes of fashionable choices seemed particularly stark†¦Addison and Steel were particularly annoyed by the fops who troubled boundaries they were working to stabilize. That is, as fashionable consumption enriched manufacturers and shopkeepers at the expense of the aristocracy, Addison and Steele sough tot portray fashion itself as feminine in particular ways: as prone to ungovernable appetites, unreasonable fancies, and as generally wasting in its seductive powers. Men who gave into its allure risked becoming feminine, or risked losing their humanity altogether. The figure of the Romantic –era dandy, then, addressed old concerns, stirred up old fears, and challenged strongly defended distinctions between masculinity and fashion (George 5). According then to this statement, George’s obsession with proving himself to his fellow male friends would put him the category of half a dandy as he does not display all of the necessary traits that being a true dandy entails. However, it is his vanity that truly defines George’s personality. His vanity on how he will appear to his friends is what initiates his gift-giving and thus, it is vanity that is the main propellant to this character’s impetus on most of his actions in the course of the novel. His vanity in his own ego just like Sedley’s drives this character forward in Thackeray’s work, and it is vanity which engulfs him in relationship with Amelia. By failing to exhibit many of the traits of what defines a gentleman throughout the novel, George is seen trying to hold on to this idea of being a dandy, a trait he obviously lacks. It is in his pursuits that Thackeray appears to be a making a mockery of George and what he believes makes him superior to his much hated rival, Rebecca. However, the two of them are very much alike, each character is seen as taking advantage of each opportunity to better their position in society, and it is their pursuits that Thackeray allows the English class system to shine through in his novel. For instance, when Rebecca is seen writing a letter to her beloved Amelia about her first encounter with Rawdon Crawley where she writes â€Å"Your Indian Muslin and your pink silk, dearest Amelia, are said to become me very well. They are a good deal worn now; but you know, we poor girls cannot afford des fraiches toilettes† (Thackeray 115), Thackeray has her ending the letter with the story of her scarf. This scarf does not represent a gift, but a class distinction. He wants to remind his audience of the different privileges available to the middle class, and it is through the use of the dandy that his message is conveyed. In Rebecca’s position as a â€Å"penniless governess† her only exposure to anything Indian would be this scarf that Amelia herself did not want. This scarf appears to be Amelia indirectly displaying her thoughts of the lower class believing them to only be worthy of her trash—or it could also be her tactless manner and her own inability to see beyond the scope of her own world and thus her giving this as a gift is her ignorance being displayed in Thackeray’s novel and how privileged women are not always the smartest despite their positions. Interestingly, Rebecca took it as an act of kindness, and as something of value. It appears that by her taking advantage of the scarf it is her way of holding on to some piece of the middle class, her wearing of the garment is a way to fool people of the reality of her situation. Despite her tactless manner, it seems that Amelia is one of the only redeeming character’s in Vanity Fair, again this may be attributed to her ignorance, as Fraser writes

Analysis of Stolls Essay, On Classrooms, With and Without Computers :: Education Teaching

Analysis of Stoll's Essay, On Classrooms, With and Without Computers Clifford Stoll's essay "On Classrooms, with and without Computers" discusses the role computers play in the modern classroom. Although the theme is not directly stated at the beginning of the piece, it soon becomes apparent that Stoll believes that computers do not have the ability to give a person, especially a child, a complete education because "only human beings can teach the connections between things." He uses a style of asking questions and then answering them himself, which works well because it causes the reader to think about the topic before Stoll presents his own argument. It also keeps the essay organized, although it makes the text seem choppy at times. His tone is educated, though sometimes sarcastic. The audience that he writes for would likely be parents, teachers, and other people concerned about quality education; and they are also likely to be fairly educated people themselves. The essay is based on the warrant that computers have inherent limitations that should not be ignored. In order to support his claim of fact, Stoll uses three ideas. The first support claim questions the value of the information the children are receiving from computers. An example Stoll uses is a Computer-Using Educators conference when a speaker pointed out the amount of research a computer can generate. One teacher remarked that the printed pages were worthless in a classroom without a great deal of sorting and working. Audience members unfamiliar with computers would sympathize with this situation, although a technologically advanced group might be experienced enough to cut down on extra work. Either way, it implies that more precise methods might work better. Stoll's second support claim discusses how people view computers. In American school systems computer classes are replacing other classes like home economics and drivers education. Logical thinkers would be persuaded that emphasis on computers is shortsighted. When David Thornburg, director of the Computer-Using Educators conference, says that soon students will not need to use library because of the information they can get at home on the Internet, Stoll expresses disbelief at the notion. Educated people accustomed to learning in several different ways would agree with the idea that there is more to learning than this one resource. Stoll also uses the learning styles of children to support his claim. There is a physical side of education that cannot be simulated on screen, and a persuasive point that he makes is that by encouraging inquisitiveness in all of the areas of education children will have a broader basis on which to learn. Analysis of Stoll's Essay, On Classrooms, With and Without Computers :: Education Teaching Analysis of Stoll's Essay, On Classrooms, With and Without Computers Clifford Stoll's essay "On Classrooms, with and without Computers" discusses the role computers play in the modern classroom. Although the theme is not directly stated at the beginning of the piece, it soon becomes apparent that Stoll believes that computers do not have the ability to give a person, especially a child, a complete education because "only human beings can teach the connections between things." He uses a style of asking questions and then answering them himself, which works well because it causes the reader to think about the topic before Stoll presents his own argument. It also keeps the essay organized, although it makes the text seem choppy at times. His tone is educated, though sometimes sarcastic. The audience that he writes for would likely be parents, teachers, and other people concerned about quality education; and they are also likely to be fairly educated people themselves. The essay is based on the warrant that computers have inherent limitations that should not be ignored. In order to support his claim of fact, Stoll uses three ideas. The first support claim questions the value of the information the children are receiving from computers. An example Stoll uses is a Computer-Using Educators conference when a speaker pointed out the amount of research a computer can generate. One teacher remarked that the printed pages were worthless in a classroom without a great deal of sorting and working. Audience members unfamiliar with computers would sympathize with this situation, although a technologically advanced group might be experienced enough to cut down on extra work. Either way, it implies that more precise methods might work better. Stoll's second support claim discusses how people view computers. In American school systems computer classes are replacing other classes like home economics and drivers education. Logical thinkers would be persuaded that emphasis on computers is shortsighted. When David Thornburg, director of the Computer-Using Educators conference, says that soon students will not need to use library because of the information they can get at home on the Internet, Stoll expresses disbelief at the notion. Educated people accustomed to learning in several different ways would agree with the idea that there is more to learning than this one resource. Stoll also uses the learning styles of children to support his claim. There is a physical side of education that cannot be simulated on screen, and a persuasive point that he makes is that by encouraging inquisitiveness in all of the areas of education children will have a broader basis on which to learn.

Is Monopoly Necessarily Less Efficient Than Perfect Competition?

Is Monopoly necessarily less efficient than Perfect Competition According to SJ Grant’s Introductory Economics, Monopoly is the only sole supplier of the industry. They would not inherit any competitions as well as having no close substitutes. There are many reasons that cause the formation of Monopolists. Barriers to enter or exit discourages new firms to enter the market (patent rights creates a right to sell that product, abnormal profit, predatory pricing, raw material ownership, high fixed cost, government) being a price maker, firms either merge or get taken over by other firms and economies of scale.In Perfect competition, there are many sellers and buyers; there are only homogenous goods and perfect information. They are price takers so no firm charges either below or above the ruling market price. The demand curve is perfectly elastic. In this type of market, there is consumer sovereignty and advertisement could not be used to influence consumer’s demands. Howe ver both of them are opposite extreme forms of the market structure and in the realistic world, they hardly ever occur. An economist would define efficiency as ‘nothing can be made better off without causing the loss of another’.This is also known as Pareto efficiency. Meanwhile it is also when the resources are allocated in the best possible ways at the lowest possible average cost. Figure 1 Some people view Monopoly to be less efficient than perfect competition because they face no direct competition and so they would not work towards the interest of consumers. They would fail to apprehend productive efficiency using techniques and factors of production to produce at the lowest possible average cost per unit, because the cost of production is not a main concern to a Monopolist.They would simply increase price or restrict output. Monopolies are able to do that because they are price makers; even though the setting price is determined by the demand, they are still capab le of restricting output and increase the price. This demonstrated by figure 1 where the price is set against the AR curve rather than the MR. On the contrary, perfect competition means firms compete against each other: cost in this case is one of the main issues. The firms in that market would aim to produce at the lowest average cost because of the profit maximizing point, MR=MC.But in a perfect competitive market, the firms in the long run would only get normal profit so total revenue equals total cost. Figure 2 Monopolists are able to attain abnormal profit in the long run due to barriers to entry or exit. It illustrates that monopolies have market power and the downward sloping demand curve is one of the causes as shown in figure 2. The quantity and price which the monopolist selects is largely dependent on the marginal revenue and marginal cost. But the marginal revenue curve would always be lower than the demand curve.The reason for this can be illustrated by the figure 2; It shows that at any two random points and using the method of working out the total revenue (price X quantity), you would always get a negative gradient curve. Whilst differentiating the curve’s equation, you would always get the curve being below the demand curve. The quantity or price the firm chooses is based on the marginal revenue and marginal cost because, by increasing output, it causes two contrasting effects, price and quantity.The quantity effect is that by producing one more unit and it being sold, it increases the total revenue by the price that it is sold at. But producing more units, it decreases the price of the good and makes total revenue fall: this is the price effect. The price effect means that the marginal revenue will not be constant and so it would be below the demand curve. Consequently price effect would always occur if the monopolist increases quantity. However in a perfect competition, the MR equals AR: the firms being price takers, they can only acc ept the ruling market price.The AR curve is perfectly elastic because of consumer sovereignty. In figure 3, it shows that the firms only aim the price at the market demand; no firms would produce below the ruling market price because in the long run they would be earning a loss and eventually leave the market and in contrast, they would not set it above the market price because no consumers would buy from them when the goods are homogenous and other firms are there. Figure 3 Subsequently, with the MR curve always being below the demand curve, it causes the monopolist produce inefficiently.This is because all firms desires to produce the profit maximizing point, MR=MC and when the monopoly produces at that point, it will always produce at the point that is lower than the efficient level and so monopolies misallocate resources. Hence deadweight loss occurs and this can happen both in the long and short run as there are no competition pressure for them to become allocatively efficient. Allocative efficient is when P=MC where the cost reflects the price. Another point would be that unregulated monopoly can overcharge consumers as well as not allocating resource in a satisfactory manner.In a perfect competition market, firms are able to obtain allocatively efficient in the long run. Firms can misallocate in the short run due to them either earning abnormal profit or a loss but as soon as market competitions enhances firms to earn normal profit and produce efficiently, it becomes allocatively efficient. Barriers to entry prevent this discipline from market competition to happen to a monopolist and so they continue to misallocate resources. Figure 4 The idea of misallocation of resource closely links to the result of deadweight loss.Deadweight loss is the net loss where there is a loss of goods being produced for the price that consumer pay at. For figure 4, it shows that due to the price being charged against the D curve instead of MR=MC, this causes the area of the consumer surplus , when consumer pay less for the good they were willing to pay for, to decrease and the producer surplus, the amount gained from selling a good to increase. This suggests that the monopolist is X-inefficient as consumer loses out, producers gain from it.Furthermore it can be seen that there is an area of deadweight loss formed as well. Not all resources are used in the market. In comparison to perfect competition, figure 3, all the area above P1 is the consumer surplus and there is no deadweight loss, all the quantity produced is reflected towards to consumer demand. However Monopoly being less efficient than perfect competition is not always the case. The ability of economies of scale is a mass production of a good or when goods are distributed through network or grids (i. e. water supply).This makes the cost of production cheaper thus brings the price down. They are called Natural monopoly and they are more technically efficient. In figure 5, Pm from monopoly is lower than the price from smaller firms and more quantity is produced. If these goods are provided by smaller competitive firms, the cost would be greater leading to the goods being more expensive. Figure 5 Monopolies can earn abnormal profits in the long run means that they can use the profit to invest in research and development. This is known as dynamically efficient.They choose to invest for further development because it would make them become more efficient hence maintaining their market position and also to improve their differentiated goods making demand become more inelastic. In reality, Microsoft uses their profit and invests in the development area. They are a well established company and have customer loyalty due to the quality of their goods and the patent rights they impose. In contrast to perfect competition, firms would not be able to invest because they only earn normal profit.However it is not guaranteed that monopolist would make abnormal profit; it is also possib le that they only earn normal. In conclusion, through analyzing the efficiency in productive, allocative, technical and dynamical, monopoly is not necessarily less efficient than perfect competition. Although they can misallocate resources, resulting in deadweight loss, increase price or restrict output in order to gain profit there are other monopolies that are efficient like natural monopolies.One of the main reasons that monopolies produce less than the efficient level is because they lack competition pressure. If the firm is regulated by the government maybe it would act in the best interest of the society. However others may argue that because of the government, the monopoly is being protected by them. While monopolies is not always less efficient than perfect competition, most of the time is it and that is the reason governments regulate monopolies and prevent firms merging together or get taken over by.

Presidentail Power The State of the Union Speech Essays

Overseeing the action of the armed forces, appointing treaties to be drafted, managing national affairs and being a figurehead for a great nation all imply that the individual holding the title of President has a great amount of power at their disposal. There are those indviduals who automatically come to mind talking about the President, people like JFK, FDR and Abraham Lincoln, people who left a profound impact on the nation. Then there are the back burner Presidents who do not come to mind at all, individuals like Franklin Pierce and Benjamin Harrison, who did not seem to have anything significant happen during their time as president. Some Presidents seem to have been incredibly powerful while others appear t be there just a†¦show more content†¦In order to this, the President has to be able to balance the different interests of each group and be able to persuade them, not command them, to do what he wants or else it looks like weakness (Ellington). When FDR created the Works Progress Administration that gave jobs back to Americans, it was agreed upon and funded by Congress (Leuchtenburg). His ability to persuade them into taking that route to help the American public made him look more powerful in the eyes of the people because he was able to get his way and help them. This was in complete contrast to the time when Woodrow Wilson was unable to convince the Majority of Congress to ratify the treaty of Versailles because he was unwilling to compromise (Versailles). This in turn led to the Democrats losing the next election, a clear example of the loss of power. The ability of the President to be able to persuade other members of the government to pass plans that they come up with is one that clearly demonstrates their power and can make them seem even more powerful if they are able to successfully do it. Public opinion of a President affects how powerful they appear at the time. Some Presidents, like Ronald Regan were liked by a good number of people which helps them get more power because they had the support of the public. There is never a guarantee that one hundred percent of the people will like them, but a lot of people did like Regan during his presidency.