In Peter Berger’s “Invitation to Sociology”, the sociological perspective was introduced. Berger asserts that it is important to examine new or emotionally or morally challenging situations from a sociological perspective in order to gain a clearer understanding of their true meanings. This perspective requires a person to observe a situation through objective eyes. It is important to “look beyond” the stereotypical establishments of a society and focus on their true, hidden meanings.
Consideration of all the hidden meanings of social customs, norms, deviations and taboos, allow one to establish an objective image about the truth behind it. This method can also be applied to understanding people. This questioning, Berger says, is the root influence of social change and personal understanding of others. To do this well, it involves much intellectual prowess and ability to reason. This was an intriguing discussion of the sociological perspective because it discussed how ordinary people might go about debunking the truths of their societies.
Examples of researching newspapers, talking to authorities, and questioning preset customs and definitions, much in the way we can redefine the concept of “love”, makes sense when superimposed upon a living society like ours. Berger identified the methodological nature of the sociological perspective in that it is not a distinct way of seeing others, but a means to examine others through a multifaceted scope.
Although it can be difficult, this method is common and can be seen in people’s attempts to understand the significance behind various personal situations. For example, when speaking to a significant other one might realize tension in their voice. “What is the cause for this” They might ask. Without being able to debunk the truth behind their “other’s” behavior they might never be able to learn an accurate answer. This method of thinking objectively is indispensable to our attempts to become better able to interact and understand one another’s actions.
Ann Levine and Naomi Neft’s article “Women in Today’s World” asserts that although the status of females in developed countries has vastly improved with society’s movement toward a more gender-equal condition, the majority of women remain in a dire state of oppression. Women are more impoverished, illiterate, unemployed, and more destitute than men. In spite of some women’s improvements under developed countries’ more progressive, gender-equal regimes, education, literacy rates, employment, civil rights, health, and public representation remain substandard for most of the world’s females.
Levine and Neft begin their argument discussing the majority of women in today’s world. These women live in areas untouched by changing laws and movements toward gender equality. These are women who remain repressed by their own religions and social laws, customs, and societal traditions and are unable to gain access to better education, jobs, and healthcare. Still prevalent in today’s world are “tracking” techniques that aim young women in foreign schools toward traditional feminine jobs and ancient religious regimes (like those of Islam) that suppress women’s decisions how to dress, socialize, and earn money.
Statistics regarding education, literacy rates, employment, civil rights, health, and public representation demonstrate that although the situations of more affluent and westernized females might be improving, global standards still indicate women to be the secondary gender. Levine and Neft indicate that women tend to be the majority gender in countries where there is a higher incidence of gender-equal movement and better living conditions. Westernized countries across the globe are havens for women because they can expect to live longer, make more of their own money, and escape the oppressive male-dominated regimes of other countries.
As a result of women successes and the pride they realize in their achievements, movements that promote feminism and equality develop. With attention toward the welfare of women of oppressive nations, their education, their general living conditions, and largely, their suffrage rights, feminist groups attempt to “level the playing field” and promote the advancement of rights to all the world’s women. Levine and Neft presented a successful and powerful argument thanks to their statistical evidence.
It is true that many countries (i. e. e United States, Australia, and England) allow women to succeed and enjoy the same rights and privileges as men, but these women account for only a small fraction of the 2. 8 billion women living on earth. As this linear, factual argument showed, still 70% of all impoverished people are women. Further categories of statistics (one for each point I outlined) supply evidence accounting for women’s overwhelming role in the impoverished population. The authors furthered their point by noting an example of modern-day oppression of women.
The Taliban movement of Afghanistan employs strict Islam law that forces women to be uneducated, unskilled, and unopened to free, social interaction with others… especially men. This supplies final substantiation of the authors’ argument, that women continue to be oppressed by their male-dominated societies. It is a bold undertaking for women to ally and promote a world movement to abandon sexist traditions. Although I have never lived in a third world or non-Westernized country, I have studied the conditions women suffer as “inferior” to men.
In National Geographic and various courses I have taken, these terrible conditions are depicted in full color. Gender inequality is a terrible trait of our global society, and unfortunately, a trait that might not be ready to change. In America we see gender bias towards women in voters’ unwillingness to elect more females into high office, and while this is not nearly as severe as the rest of the world, it indicates the lingering practice of gender inequality.
