In Born on the Fourth of July by Ron Kovic, what type of treatment was given to Kovic at the veteran's hospital?

In Born on the Fourth of July, Ron takes offense to the treatment he receives at the VA hospital. 

When Ron arrives at the hospital for physical rehabilitation, he is paralyzed. He lost control of his lower body when a bullet pierced his spinal cord while he was out in the field.  He still believes in the mission and his service when he says that his paralysis is "ok because I did it for democracy." 

The first time when Ron senses a disconnect between his beliefs and the reality around him is when he arrives at the VA hospital.  Ron expected that the facility would be sanitary. However, Ron finds filth and squalor in the hospital.  He starts his mornings with group showers and public enemas, exercises that chip away at his dignity as a returning veteran.  The people attending to him look at their work in a banal way.  They do not empathize with Ron as a veteran.  They do not address him or treat him as someone who has sacrificed more than most citizens can or would. Rather, they look at tending to him as a "job."  This hurts Ron because he never looked at his service in such terms.  The equipment designed to help his rehabilitation is faulty and malfunctions frequently.  

As a result, Ron has a difficult time reconciling what he feels he is due as a veteran and what he experiences in the hospital.  The treatment Ron receives is one of the first instances where he begins to question his sacrifice and raise questions about the way that Vietnam Veterans are treated in America.

In Spiegelman's Maus, how does death inevitably affect Vladek's relationships throughout the years?

Many people who survive traumatizing events that involve death wind up experiencing survivor's guilt. Not only does everyone closest to Vladek die, but six million of his brothers and sisters die while he is lucky enough to survive. This knowledge holds Vladek back from truly moving forward in life because he clings to old habits that he needed from during the war to survive. It's as if Vladek is always in survival mode rather than focusing on the people around him who could bring joy to his life. In chapter two of the second part of Maus, Artie is talking with the therapist about his father. Artie complains of his father's behaviors which caused many people to become frustrated with him during his life. The therapist says something that makes Artie think of his father in a more profound light:

"Maybe your father needed to show that he was always right--that he could always survive--because he felt guilty about surviving" (204).

The opposite of survival is death; therefore, Vladek subconsciously needs to maintain his survival behavior in order to justify avoiding death after so many died.

Another example of how death affects Vladek is through the survival skills he acquires during the war. For example, his strong desire to survive leads him to be aware of his surroundings and how to fit in where work was needed. Those who could work, or who had special skills, lived because they showed Poles and Germans their value. After the war, he also used these resourceful skills to get a job in Sweden and eventually to get to America. Vladek's life is all about survival, whether he is in the war, a prison camp, or in America. The fear of death at almost every stage of his life drives him to be continually saving, moving, becoming more so that he can see another day.

Artie sees this growing up, but he doesn't understand his father's behavior because he's never experienced fear of dying every day of his life. For example, when Artie and Vladek are walking to the bank, Vladek finds some telephone wire and picks it up to save for later. This is a habit from Auschwitz because anything saved could probably be used to trade for food or services later. Artie tells his father to throw the wire away and go buy what he needs, Vladek's reply is as follows:

"Why always you want to buy when you can find!? Anyway, this wire they don't have it in any stores" (118).

Whether its matches or wire, old cereal or bread, if something isn't useful to him, he trades it away. Anything Vladek has is either used to help him in some way or to save money--or he trades it away for something that does. This behavior drives his son and second wife crazy, but they don't understand that he is just doing the only thing he knows how to do, and that is to survive in his own way. It got him through the war, why not do what seems to work? Vladek just never comes to grip that once in America, the war is over, Hitler is gone, and he doesn't just have to survive each day; he can finally live.

Vladek never seems to grasp the concept that he is completely free from the threat of death. As a result, his second wife leaves him, his son doesn't want to take care of him, and he never truly moves on to create better relationships in his life. In fact, he pushes people away unknowingly. Therefore, death affects Vladek's life because of the survivor's guilt and behaviors that he carries with him after the war. 

`int_0^pi sin^2(t) cos^4(t) dt` Evaluate the integral

You need to use the fundamental trigonometric formula `sin^2 x = 1 - cos^2 x:`

`int sin^2 t*cos^4 t dt = int (1 - cos^2 t)*cos^4 t dt`

`int (1 - cos^2 t)*cos^4 t dt = int cos^4 t dt - int cos^6 t dt`

You should use the following formula:

`cos^2 t = (1 + cos 2t)/2 => cos^4 t = ((1 + cos 2t)^2)/4`

`cos^6 t = ((1 + cos 2t)^3)/8`

` int cos^4 t dt= (1/4) int ((1 + cos 2t)^2) dt`

` int cos^4 t dt= (1/4) int dt + (1/4) int 2cos 2t dt + (1/4) cos^2 2t dt`

`int cos^4 t dt= (1/4) t + (1/4) sin 2t + (1/4)int (1 + cos 4t)/2dt`

`int cos^4 t dt= (1/4) t + (1/4) sin 2t + (1/8)( t + (sin 4t)/4) + c`

You need to solve  `int cos^6 t` dt such that:

`int cos^6 t dt = int ((1 + cos 2t)^3)/8 dt`

`int cos^6 t dt = (1/8)int dt + (1/8) int cos^3 2t dt + (3/8) int cos^2 2t dt +(3/8) int cos 2t dt`

`(1/8) int cos^3 2t dt = (1/8) int cos^2 2t *cos 2t dt`

 `int cos^2 2t *cos 2t  dt  =  int (1 - sin^2 2t) *cos 2t  dt `

`sin 2t = u => 2cos 2t dt = du`

`int (1 - sin^2 2t) *cos 2t  dt  = int (1 - u^2) *(du)/2`

`int (1 - u^2) *(du)/2 = u/2 - u^3/6`

`int (1 - sin^2 2t) *cos 2t  dt  = (sin 2t)/2 - (sin^3 2t)/6`

` int cos^6 t dt = (1/8)t + (1/8)((sin 2t)/2 - (sin^3 2t)/6) + (3/16) sin 2t + (3/8) int cos^2 2t dt `

` int cos^6 t dt = (1/8)t + (1/8)((sin 2t)/2 - (sin^3 2t)/6) + (3/16) sin 2t + (3/8) int (1 + cos 4t)/2 dt`

` int cos^6 t dt = (1/8)t + (1/8)((sin 2t)/2 - (sin^3 2t)/6) + (3/16) sin 2t + (3/8) (t + (sin 4t)/4)`

Hence, the result of integration is:

`int sin^2 t*cos^4 t dt = (1/4)pi + (1/4) sin 2pi + (1/8)(pi + (sin 8pi)/4)- (1/8)(pi - (1/8)((sin 2pi)/2 - (sin^3 4pi)/6)- (3/16) sin4pi- (3/8) (pi/2 + (sin 8pi)/4)`

`int sin^2 t*cos^4 t dt = int sin^2 t*cos^4 t dt = pi/4 - (3pi)/16 = pi/16`

What are parenting styles?

Introduction

The research on parenting styles has examined patterns of child-rearing behavior exhibited by parents and corresponding behavior and personality characteristics found in their children. Parenting style can be categorized by two components: responsiveness, a parent’s response to the child’s needs and wishes, and demandingness or behavioral control, a parent’s approach to discipline and the level of demands placed on the child. Numerous researchers have found that parenting style influences the development of children.

Although parenting styles have been described in a variety of terms by different authors, the most commonly identified styles of parenting were labeled by developmental psychologist Diana Baumrind during the early 1960s. Through extensive observation, interviews, and psychological testing, she identified three different approaches to child rearing and discipline as authoritarian, permissive, and authoritative. According to Baumrind, parenting style is the pattern of normal variations in parents’ attempts to control and socialize their children. It represents the overall approach to child rearing rather than situation-specific practices by parents.

Each of the three parenting styles identified by Baumrind has been described in terms of high or low levels of emotional support and high or low levels of control or demandingness. Following Baumrind’s early research, a fourth style labeled as uninvolved or neglectful is often included.

Specific Styles of Parenting

The authoritarian style of parenting is a combination of low levels of emotional support and high levels of control. Authoritarian parents have a rigid set of absolute standards for child behavior that are strictly enforced through physical punishment. They expect instant and unquestioning obedience from their children. Respect for authority, work, and tradition is very important to authoritarian parents, and challenges to the parents’ authority or questioning of rules is simply not tolerated. These parents exert restrictive control over their children’s self-expression and independent behavior.

Parents with a permissive (or indulgent) style provide emotional support but exercise little control over their children. These parents are nonpunitive and make very little attempt to discipline their children or otherwise control their behavior. They place very few demands on their children for household chores and allow the children to make their own decisions about basic family policies such as television viewing and bedtime. Permissive parents are very responsive to their children and are accepting of their children’s impulses, desires, and activities. Rather than purposefully directing, shaping, or altering their children’s behaviors or decisions, they prefer to see themselves as resources that their children may consult if they wish.

The third style of parenting is referred to by Baumrind as authoritative. Authoritative (or democratic) parents set clear standards for mature and responsible behavior and expect their children to meet these standards. They firmly enforce rules but do not unduly restrict their children’s activities or self-expression. In fact, authoritative parents recognize their children’s individual rights, interests, and unique style and encourage them to think for themselves. These parents encourage verbal give-and-take regarding family rules, will listen to reasonable requests from their children, and are open to some degree of negotiation. When disciplining their children, authoritative parents rely on induction rather than coercion. Induction refers to the use of reasoning to explain and enforce parental expectations.

The uninvolved or neglectful style is a fourth possible parenting approach used by a significant minority. Some view this style as an extension of permissive parenting, but it lacks the high degree of involvement and represents instead a low level of both emotional support and control. Parents who are uninvolved tend to minimize the time and energy devoted to parenting. They know very little about their children’s activities, show little interest in their children’s experiences, and rarely talk to their children or consider their opinions when making decisions.

Dimensions of Parenting Behavior

The prototypical styles of child rearing can be clearly distinguished from one another on the basis of two dimensions of parenting behavior: demandingness and responsiveness. Demandingness can be defined as the degree to which parents use control to demand that their children meet their high expectations with regard to mature, responsible behavior. Parental responsiveness refers to the degree of warmth, acceptance, and noncoerciveness evident in the parents’ interactions with their children. The authoritarian parenting style has been described as high in demandingness and low in responsiveness. In contrast, the permissive parenting style is thought to be low in demandingness and high in responsiveness. The authoritative parenting style is high in the dimensions of both demandingness and responsiveness. The least effective parenting style, the uninvolved, is low in both demandingness and responsiveness. Parents with this style combine the emotional aloofness of authoritarian parenting with the disciplinary parenting of permissive parenting.

A further distinction can be made between the aspects of demandingness emphasized by authoritarian and authoritative parents. The demandingness displayed by authoritative parents is high in the use of firm control with their children; that is, they firmly and consistently enforce rules but do not extensively or intrusively direct their children’s activities. On the other hand, authoritarian parents, also high in demandingness, tend to rely more on restrictive control, which involves the extensive use of rules that cover most aspects of their children’s lives and severely restrict their autonomy to develop skills on their own.

Consequences for Child Development

In her research on child-rearing practices, Baumrind not only identified patterns of parenting styles but also identified characteristics of children reared by these parents. She found that parents’ approaches to child rearing have important implications in terms of the degree of autonomy and responsible social behavior exhibited by children. The children of authoritative parents, in comparison to other peers, were found to be more self-reliant, self-controlled, content, and explorative. They were also energetic, friendly, curious, cooperative; they got along well with peers, and they exhibited high self-esteem. Furthermore, these children exhibited more mature moral judgments than their peers and were better able to control their own aggressive impulses and channel them into more appropriate, prosocial behaviors.

In contrast, authoritarian parenting is associated with children who are unhappy, socially withdrawn, distrustful, and moody. In addition, they tend to lack spontaneity and be overly dependent on adults for directions and decision making. Finally, these children are more likely to be rejected by their peers and suffer from low self-esteem. Parents who rely on a permissive style of child rearing tend to have children who are immature, lacking in impulse control, less exploratory, more dependent, and aggressive.

Children with uninvolved parents, labeled by some researchers as “disengaged” parents, may experience the most negative consequences. Although researched less than the other three styles, parents with this style are rarely there for their children in terms of either discipline or support. The largest differences in competence in general are found between children with unengaged parents and their peers with more involved parents. Children with disengaged parents are frequently absent from school, earn lower grades, and are less motivated to perform well in the classroom. When these children become adolescents, they tend to overconform to the pressures of the peer group because there is very little pressure at home to conform to parents’ values and expectations. Those adolescents who have parents low in both demandingness and responsiveness (indifferent parents) are more likely to become engaged in delinquent behavior, as well as in early experimentation with drugs, alcohol, and sex.

Baumrind’s original goal in her research was to identify the specific aspects of child-rearing practices that are instrumental in producing optimal competence in children. She described competence as a combination of social responsibility and independence. A socially responsible child is friendly and altruistic toward peers and cooperative with adults. In contrast, a socially irresponsible child would behave in a hostile and selfish fashion toward other children and be resistive with adults. Independence in a child is characterized by assertiveness, leadership, and confident, purposeful activity. Children low in independence are described as suggestible, submissive followers engaged in disorganized and aimless activity. Children who were high in both social responsibility and independence were considered to be optimally competent. Competent children are mostly likely to be able to resolve social conflicts in a way that is both effective and fair as well as being sensitive and compassionate to the needs of others.

During the last half of the 1990s, many researchers published their studies on the relationship between parenting style and adolescent development. Originally, studies were conducted with preschool and elementary school children, but equal attention was not given to later development. The results from studies with adolescents have consistently shown the superiority of authoritative parenting over the other styles.

Gender Differences

Not surprisingly, when the factor of children’s competence was examined and matched with parenting style, Baumrind found that children from authoritative homes were much more competent than their peers. In particular, she found that girls with authoritative parents were more likely to exhibit assertive, purposeful, and achievement-oriented behavior. Boys from authoritative homes were more likely to be friendly and cooperative in comparison to other boys their age. Lower levels of competence were observed in children coming from authoritarian and permissive households. Boys with authoritarian parents were low in social responsibility and tended to be hostile and resistive, whereas girls tended to be lower in independence and assertiveness. Permissive parenting was associated with low levels of social assertiveness in girls and low achievement orientation in both sexes.

It is clear from this research that parenting styles affect boys and girls in different ways. Differences in parenting styles appear to have a stronger impact on the development of social responsibility in boys than in girls, most likely because there is normally less variability between girls on this attribute. According to the literature on gender roles, cooperation and compassion toward others is an attribute most frequently associated with females, regardless of how they were reared. Similarly, child-rearing practices have a consistent and stronger impact on the development of independence and social assertiveness in girls than in boys. The characteristics of dominance, assertiveness, and leadership associated with the attribute of independence are more often found in males, regardless of their upbringing. In a sense, what authoritative parenting appears to do is strengthen the otherwise less developed component of competence in each sex and lead to a more balanced combination of both social responsibility and independence. Sandra Bem, a leading researcher in the area of sex roles, has used the term androgynous to refer to individuals who are high in positive characteristics typically associated with both males and females. There is much research to indicate that androgynous individuals are more likely to be competent and psychologically well adjusted in adulthood.

Bibliography

Abela, Angela, and Janet Walker, eds. Contemporary Issues in Family Studies. Malden: Wiley, 2014. Print.

Asmussen, Kirsten. The Evidence-Based Parenting Practitioner's Handbook. New York: Routledge, 2011. Print.

Baumrind, Diana. “Rearing Competent Children.” Child Development Today and Tomorrow. Ed. William Damon. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991. Print.

Cline, Foster W., and Jim Fay. Parenting with Love and Logic. Colorado Springs: Pinon, 2006. Print.

Darling, Nancy, and Lawrence Steinberg. “Parenting Style as Context: An Integrative Model.” Psychological Bulletin 113 (1993): 487–96. Print.

Huxley, Ron. Love and Limits: Achieving a Balance in Parenting. New York: Singular, 1999. Print.

Peterson, Gary W., Suzanne K. Steinmetz, and Stephan M. Wilson, eds. Parent-Youth Relations: Cultural and Cross-Cultural Perspectives. New York: Routledge, 2012. Print.

Pruett, Kyle D. Fatherneed: Why Father Care Is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child. New York: Free, 2001. Print.

Smith, Charles A., ed. The Encyclopedia of Parenting Theory and Research. Westport: Greenwood, 1999. Print.

Steinberg, Lawrence. Beyond the Classroom: Why School Reform Has Failed and What Parents Need to Do. New York: Simon, 1997. Print.

Steinberg, Lawrence, Nancy Darling, and Anne C. Fletcher. “Authoritative Parenting and Adolescent Adjustment: An Ecological Journey.” Examining Lives in Context: Perspectives on the Ecology of Human Development. Ed. Phillis Moen, Glen H. Elder Jr., and Kurt Luscher. Washington: American Psychological Association, 1995. Print.

Strauss, Murray. Beating the Devil Out of Them: Corporal Punishment in American Families. New Brunswick: Transaction, 2001. Print.

Sunderland, Margot. The Science of Parenting. London: Dorling, 2006. Print.

Teyber, Edward. Helping Children Cope with Divorce. San Francisco: Jossey, 2001. Print.

How does The Crucible teach us how power has been shifted around when challenged?

Power shifts several times in The Crucible.  First, Tituba and the girls become extremely powerful at the end of Act 1; a slave and a group of young girls are hardly the sort of people who would typically have a great deal of power in Salem in 1692: consider Parris's threat to beat both Tituba and Abigail in this act.  However, with their accusations of witchcraft, accusations that seem to confirm the worst fears of a few, power shifts away from those who typically have it to those who typically don't.  The cause?  Fear.  The accusations seem to justify the fears of people like Mrs. Putnam, and once others begin to realize the extreme power the girls now wield (as well as how they might help put this power to use for their own ends), the girls' power is cemented.

Later, in Act Three, the power typically held by a judge or the deputy governor of the colony is shifted away from them and onto the girls.  Again, fear is the major reason for the shift.  Danforth first acquires his power by instilling fear in others.  He tells Francis Nurse that "a person is either with this court or he must be counted against it, there be no road between."  His goal seems to be to make people afraid that they will be considered one of the individuals who are "against" the court; such a fear would silence them and prevent them from preventing evidence that would seem to contradict the girls' statements.  Abigail then shifts the power dynamic again when she instills fear in Danforth.  When Proctor confesses his affair with Abigail and Danforth questions her about it, she eventually says "in an open threat: Let you beware, Mr. Danforth.  Think you to be so mighty that the power of Hell may not turn your wits?  Beware of it!"  Thus, she threatens him with an accusation, making him fearful, and causing him to defer to her power moving forward.  

All of these shifts seem to teach us that fear is dangerous.  Fear strips us of our reason and our compassion, compelling us to behave in ways that we normally would not, to believe statements we would typically doubt.  John F. Kennedy once said that "We have nothing to fear but fear itself," and The Crucible seems to support such a statement. 

In the novel The Outsiders, what does Pony mean when he says "I was supposed to be the deep one"?

While Ponyboy and Johnny are hiding out, they begin to read the novel Gone With the Wind. Pony mentions that Johnny really enjoyed the book but didn't know much information about the Civil War or the setting of the novel. After Ponyboy explains the historical context and background, he says that he is amazed at Johnny's ability to comprehend deeper meanings throughout the story. Ponyboy then comments, "I was supposed to be the deep one" (Hinton 65). Ponyboy has a reputation of being one the of most intelligent individuals in the Greaser gang. He consistently gets good grades and is an avid reader. In contrast, Johnny never excelled at school, which is why Ponyboy is rather surprised at his ability to grasp deeper meaning in the text and made the previous comment about how he was supposed to be the “deep one." Johnny is not considered intelligent in the traditional sense simply because he has a hard time keeping pace with the lessons at school and gets bad grades. Given an adequate amount of time and opportunity to understand certain concepts, Johnny can express his innate ability to comprehend deeper meanings and messages throughout various texts.

Could Daisy be considered the cause of Gatsby's downfall?

This question requires a short recap of F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby: at the beginning, the narrator Nick Carraway becomes acquainted with his eccentric (and fabulously wealthy) neighbor, Jay Gatsby. As the novel progresses, we learn that Gatsby used to be a poor young man. He fell in love with Daisy, who married Tom Buchanan, presumably because of his comfortable affluence. Since this time, Gatsby has worked hard (often, it's suggested, through illegal means) to build a great fortune and win Daisy's affection. However, in the end Daisy chooses to stay with Tom, and Gatsby is murdered. 

On the surface level, it's easy to blame Daisy for Gatsby's death. Gatsby does, after all, take the blame for striking and killing Myrtle Wilson with his car (even though Daisy was driving at the time), and it's this action that leads to his death. However, Gatsby's fall is more complicated than a car accident. Indeed, because of Daisy, Gatsby devotes his life to amassing a vast, but ultimately meaningless, fortune. I deem it meaningless because it doesn't help Gatsby win Daisy's affection, and it attracts hoards of guests who care very little about Gatsby as a real person. In short, Gatsby's wealth does not actually help him develop meaningful relationships, which is what originally motivated him to get rich in the first place. All in all, it can be argued that Daisy is the catalyst that causes Gatsby to waste his life in a quest for empty fulfillment. Daisy's hand in this process is far more important than her hand in Gatsby's death because, in the end, it's Gatsby's embrace of shallow materialism that proves to be his real downfall.