Nervous Breakdowns :: Nervous Breakdown Mental Collapse Stress

In the middle Ages, it was called melancholia. In the early 1900s, it was known as neurasthenia. From the 1930s to about 1970, it was known as a nervous breakdown. "Nervous breakdown" is a term that the public uses to characterize a range of mental illnesses, but generally it describes the experience of "snapping" under massive pressure, mental collapse or mental and physical exhaustion. Have you ever wondered how you can tell if someone is having a nervous breakdown? Or what causes them or how they're caused? Well, the causes of nervous breakdowns are very similar to panic attacks, ADD, and ADHD. There is always a trigger or catalyst that sparks a nervous breakdown. Breakdowns usually stem from a change in a major life event such as a broken relationship, death of a loved one, a demanding job or financial difficulties On some cases getting nervous breakdowns are genetics, you receive them because a past family member has had one or in simpler words family history. Another sign is Coexisting medical conditions such as vitamin deficiencies or thyroid disorders. Stress, drugs, alcohol and depression are one if the most main causes of nervous breakdowns. You can always treat a breakdown. Sometimes people talk to therapist or someone they trust to discuss their issues and just â€Å"let it all out† instead of breaking down. As for others talking doesn’t always work at times it may tend to worsen the problem, so they take prescribed depression pills. Other treatments are drugs, alternative treatments, surgery, and lifestyle changes. If you feel close to having a nervous breakdown right now you are probably feeling like you have hit rock bottom. Many people who are close to a nervous break down feel a million miles from their real self. Feelings of anger, negativity, exhaustion and anxiety are probably overwhelming you and your ability to pursue a 'normal' life and 'normal' relationships is no doubt proving tough. Obviously the best approach is to prevent the breakdown from occurring in the first place. Recognizing the warning signs of a nervous breakdown and reducing and managing stress levels can often produce excellent results and prevent the total collapse usually associated with a nervous breakdown.

In Dreams Begin Responsibilities

Svetlana Sidorova Professor Grossman Eng 201-534 October 19, 2012 In â€Å"In Dreams Begin Responsibilities† Delmore Schwartz works with themes illusion, status and changes. He does this through mother, father and light. Schwartz is saying that most of the people are infantile and weak because they cannot accept the reality of life. Through the mother, we see that dreaming may lead to a painful disappointment. The mother has an unrealistic image of her and her future husband as an idyllic, respectable and happy couple, which is not true in reality. â€Å"†¦ avoiding the riotous amusements being beneath the dignity of so dignified couple†.She is trying to make an image of herself as an intelligent, domestic and interesting woman, which shows that she is not open and free with her fiance. â€Å"†¦according to her principles of economy and housewifeliness†. The mother also has fantasies about the proposal moment, taken from the love novels she reads, which were destroyed by actual proposal in the middle of a conversation on Coney Island. â€Å"†¦ she†¦begins to cry†. Perceiving the world only through prism of our expectations and wishes may lead to a fatal mistakes and wrong decisions which will afterwards turn the life into a disaster.Through the father is shown a high position in a society will not necessary bring a happiness. The father does not love his future wife but he wants to merry her only because she is from a good and respectable family. â€Å"†¦My father thinks of my mother†¦ and of the pride which will be his when he introduces her to his family†. The only thing he cares about is how to make money and what they will bring to him. â€Å"My father tells my mother how much money he has made†¦Ã¢â‚¬  his ambitious to become rich and dignified are so high that he is able to do everything to reach it, even it goes separately from his feelings and senses. His clothes are newly pressed, a nd his tie is too high in his high collar†. The high range social position will not bring a respect and aspirations without heart will cause eventually a disappointment in them.The light symbol represent that, even in darkness, it is always a chance to reorganize the present and comprehend the truth. In a photographer’s booth, we see the symbol of light where parents are able to look on themselves from the side and they have a possibility to understand that they are intolerable to each other. The place is shadowed in the mauve light which is apparently necessary†. Unfortunately, they know it from the beginning but they don not want to accept it because it will disturb already chosen path. â€Å"†¦and finally, shocked by their indifference†. The only son, who is going to start an adult life, able to summarize the parents mistakes and to build his future in the light of love, hope and faith. â€Å"†¦into the cold light, I woke up†. No matter what and when we are always know where is the light but sometimes it is easier to wander in a gloom then to find strength to look at the sun.Schwartz beliefs, that most of the people live with false creeds, imaginary definitions of life and pretensions to others. In â€Å"In Dreams Begin Responsibilities†, the mother and father know that they are a bad match to each other, but they close their eyes on these trays if light because they do not have a potency to change what is already established. The author is saying that we always have to follow our sense of rightness, even if it hearts our eyes, otherwise we will waste the life and we will never reach the whole beauty and glory of our unique personality.

Americans health

Americans are becoming more concerned with their health than ever before. This included regular exercise and as well as the quality of their diet. This has become a current phenomenon in the last few decades which the American public has yet to see before. Another recent development in the ways in which Americans regard the quality of their diet, is in the quality of the foods that they eat.The push now is for organic foods from livestock which were treated humanely. The injection of hormones into our nation’s cattle, many can say is an example of abuse towards the animals.This may or may not be true. However, hormone injection does offer a myriad of health problems which has caused the European Union as well as the nation of Japan, to be very reluctant in accepting beef imports from the United States in recent years. This has resulted in trade disputes and a sizable trade deficit between America and these two governing bodies. However, it is in the opinion of the EU, Japan an d a sizable percentage of the American people, who are weary of scientifically altering one’s cattle in the face of higher profits.What makes hormone injections even more dangerous is the long lasting half life of the hormone injections which the cattle are forced to inject into their body. The hormones do not leave the cattle when it is slaughtered. This alone brings enough danger to the safety of the meat but the hormones continue to exist in the waste of the cow as well as in the sweat secretions of the cattle as well. This allows a further spread of the hormone and thus multiplies and creates environmental as well as health concerns which have only recently been addressed through the demands of a concerned public.However, in the face of such concerns, the beef industry will not be compelled to make the necessary changes unless forced to do so by Congress as there is simply too much money to be made in the eyes of the owners. Since the 1970’s, our nation’s ca ttle have been injected with growth hormones for the simple reason that such practices yield more profit for the owner. The cow grows larger than the cattle ever would have on his own and does so at a faster pace.This allows the cattle rancher to slaughter the cattle which will yield a larger supply of beef and at a faster pace; thus decreasing the time, cost and effort that the cattle owner would otherwise have to spend on the feeding and housing of the cattle. It is a win/win situation for the cattle owner and as a result, a high majority of the more than 33 million cattle which are slaughtered each year for the human consumption of their meat have within their systems, beef growth hormones. It seems surprising that such a wide spread practice would not have received more attention that it has in the recent past.Except for the high profile libel suit by the cattle owners of America against Oprah Winfrey who raised suspicion about the safety of the beef industry in America back in 2002; a libel suit which was eventually thrown out, there has been little concern by the American public as a whole, concerning the assumed damage which beef hormones cause in our nation’s cattle. This high level of apathy seems to now be a thing of the past as the number of concerned Americans grows exponentially. On January 1, 1989, the European community, now called the European Union, placed a ban on American beef imports where growth hormones were used.By the late 1980’s, this would constitute a very large percentage of America’s beef supply and a blow was sent to America’s beef industry. However much this decision riled the beef industry in America, such decisions were not without reason. Europe had become fearful of the growth hormone, diethylstilbestrol, the hormone used in making cattle grow past their normal size, since the 1980’s. This hormone was also seen in baby foods and there were more than a number of tragic cases in which small ch ildren were subject to brain defects from the injection of their baby food.It was because of growing fears against the hormone, as well as actual cases of Europeans that had gotten sick, that the ban was put in place. The ban was not geared only towards American but all countries in the world where Europe got their meat from. The ban was widespread and universal. Europe then, as well as now, has expressed their overwhelming preference for hormone free meat. Other countries have complied with the wish but America still continues to treat a large majority of its cattle with growth hormone in the desire to increase profits.These decisions are contrary to what the Federal Food and Drug Administration, in alliance with the US Department of Agriculture, have decided that beef that are treated with this hormone create no danger in those that eat it. This may be from the motivation of profits more than the safety of the cattle as well as the people who eat it. Cattle which are treated with this growth hormone, can expect to reach its targeted weight of 1,000 lbs 21 days sooner than cattle which are not treated with the hormone. Also, the relatively low cost of the hormone treatment; $1 per implant, yields a cost of more than $100 a head.This is sought in what is often times, a relatively unstable industry. There is a great deal of money to be made or lost with this decision and the United States has continued to fight the decisions by the EU and Japan over what they see to be blatant examples of unfair trade practices. The United States points to a 1988 report by the World Health Organization which states that human consumption of the growth hormone when it stays below 1. 4 and 2. 1 micro kilograms provides no safety scare for the people who consume the meat.What was not shown by the United States was the fact that in the nearly twenty years since this report was published, the among of growth hormones which are injected into the cattle now exceed these paltry amounts as in America, the belief seems to be: more is better. Cattle are getting larger and larger every few years. The reason for this is overwhelm from growth hormones as the improved quality of the foods which the cattle now feed on, would never be able to yield such dramatic results as what is currently being seen in America’s cattle.Specifically, growth hormones have been thought to create the most damage in women and in small girls. Cancer can develop in the breasts as well as colon and pancreas. Also, â€Å"the growth hormone can cause girls to reach puberty at a faster clip than what is natural. † This is a key theme to the growth hormone as it speeds up the natural processes of the body and wreaks havoc on the internal organs of those who are treated with the hormone. It is believed that the levels of growth hormone which the cattle injects, does not completely pass from the meet to the individual and that the hormone is not meant for direct human consumption.What s erves as the most dangerous aspect of this, are the occurrences when the hormone is not kept in the strict environment in which it was designed. When the growth hormone passes at a higher concentrated level than what is advised, either through human error, the beef industry being ignorant as to the modes of transportation that the hormone can take, or in the differences in the rate at which the cattle injects the hormone, adverse reactions will and have occurred.There are more than just the immediate health concerns which need to be examined. The strong half life of these hormones add to the environmental concerns which now need to be addressed, A large portion of the hormone passes through the feces of the cow and ends up in the environment and through the normal ecological system, can easily end up in other foods as well as the drinking water of the public. This could create a very large problem, not only for the cattle but also those who have the misfortune of consuming the water .It has been reported that cattle that have drunk downstream from cattle that have been treated with growth hormone have been underweight and have been subjective to a high level of health concerns and problems. In Central Illinois, this occurred but was not caught in time by the cattle rancher at the time. The cow was slaughtered with a high level of growth hormone within his body and the meat, officials now believe, was highly tainted and not only posed a serious threat to those who ate the meat, but in reality, caused a number of very sick individuals who took weeks to recover from their ailments.As it is very hard to pinpoint where the beef went, the FDA was able to nearly pinpoint where the beef was consumed and can only point out that such a high level of coincidence is not plausible. It is the mismanagement of this hormone which is creating concern in many of the country’s scientists and environmentalists. â€Å"We said that we would not be surprised if large levels o f these hormones showed up in the nation’s drinking supply. † This, according to John McClain, director for the Centers of Biological Research states recently.Dr. McClain also states that he estimates that more than thirteen tons of the hormone DES is released into the nation’s drinking water every year. Not only does he state that such amounts will create an adverse living environment among the wildlife in the area, but for the people as well who have the misfortune of consuming the water as well. The concerns continue to mount as the United States and Canada stubbornly insist that there is no reason for alarm and that their cattle will continue to be fed this growth hormone.Scientists for the beef industry continue to claim that either the evidence is inconclusive or that no danger is presented to the general population as the levels of hormone which s used to treat the cattle is so minute as never to be able to cause harm of any kind. â€Å"The growth hormone which is used to treat our nation’s cattle, poses no threat to the environment or the people whom it comes in contact with. Our nation’s beef supply is safe to eat. † Although not to the same degree, such statements are reminiscent to the tobacco’s responses in the 1970’s and 1980’s concerning the growing concern over the safety of smoking cigarettes.Such statements were accepted by the general public when there did not exist, enough evidence to refute such statements but when it became clear that smoking caused cancer and other such diseases, such statements were no longer accepted. Many in the scientific community believe that the beef industry is going to suffer a similar fate if they continue to refute the concerns of the scientific community over the human consumption and environmental reactions when coming in contact with these growth hormones.Another concern is the safety of the milk which comes directly from cattle; many of whom are being treated with the growth hormone. A larger cow will create a higher yield of milk for its owner; thus increasing profits. The growth hormone BHG is often used to increase milk production in cows. However, the FDA’s decision in 1993 to allow for the treatment of cows with this hormone is outdated. This is a common theme which can be seen in much of the American research concerning the safety of growth hormones.The scientific research, or simply an expression of concern within the European Union, is relatively recent whereas the American research community is not being allowed to conduct the proper number of tests on the effects of the growth hormone. Either that or their findings are being refuted. There have been a number of concerns by large bodies of farmers and cattle growers in such situations. In 1994, the Wisconsin Farmers Union started a national hotline for concerned dairy farmers who were concerned over the quality of their milk from cows who had been subjected to the growth hormone.One New York dairy farmer was forced to replace 135 out of his entire herd of 200 cows because the growth hormone that he fed his cows, produced milk that was tainted. The growth hormone also led to hoof disease as well as open sores and eternal bleeding on more than a few of his cows. This should lead to a third tier of concern over the treatment of cattle with the growth hormone. Not only does the hormone present dangers to the population which consumes the meat and the environment which absorbs the waste products of the cattle, but the cattle itself.In the same way that steroids and other human growth hormones present stronger and faster athletes, only to yield a number of health concerns in the future, so too is the reaction of cattle who are subjective to the hormone. Usually, this is not a problem for cattle which is to be slaughtered by the end of the month as the hormone usually is not given enough time to cause damage in the cattle. However, cows which are used primarily for the milk that they give and thus are allowed to live, this increases the chances that adverse reactions within the cow will show itself within the cow.This is to be expected as â€Å"the growth hormones which are given to cows, creates an unnatural environment for the cow and as a result, the animal will often times react adversely and diseases will spread. † Also, cows who are forced to yield an unnatural amount of milk; a level which their bodies were not meant to provide, often times leaves the cow malnourished and sickly from an over stimulation of the cow’s body. This will lead to a shorter life span for these cows which are used to yield milk to its owner.A burn out effect for the cow will follow and whether the meat is fit for human consumption or not, the cow will simply be destroyed as his useful life on earth has been prematurely cut short through science and in the face of higher profits. Despite the evidence that the treatment of gro wth hormones creates in cows and in the people who eat and drink the milk and meat which these cattle provide, the FDA and other government sponsored scientific communities have stubbornly insisted that there is no adverse reactions on any level, to the consuming of the byproducts of cattle that have been previously treated with this growth hormone.Not only would the FDA be reluctant to place any restrictions or at least warning labels on such beef, they prohibited dairies from making such claims on their own products or in the press. There seemed to be a moratorium on the issue. However, the dates which these FDA rulings are more than ten years in the past as there has been a severe shortage of current government supported evidence from the United States to show to findings to the claims that growth hormones in our nation’s beef supply, results in the negative health effects which the rest of the developed world believes to be the case.The common use of growth hormones has r esulted in a number of differences. According to Science News, more than 80% of US feedlots inject cattle with growth hormones and that traces of the growth hormone were still seen in the typical cow, more than 195 days after the initial treatment. This is important especially with cows which are used primarily for milk as the cow’s milk supply can be tainted for more than six months from a single treatment. Also, in what seems to be the reason behind the treatment of cows with growth hormones; in 1950, the typical cow produced more than 5300 pounds of milk a year.Today, a cow which has been treated with growth hormones, can expect to yield an amazing 18,000 pounds of milk a year. However, what advantages are given when many believe that this milk is tainted? This only increased the chances that the American consumer will be adversely affected by drinking what the FDS tells him to be safe and good for the body. There is a major difference in the FDA and USDA’s take on the apparent health concerns over the treatment of the nation’s cattle being subjected to growth hormones in order to increase production of their meat and milk, as opposed to what the rest of the world is stating.This is a problem which must be addressed. There is a great deal of money to be made or lost as well as the entire way of life for thousands of the nation’s cattle ranchers and others who are involved in getting the meat to our tables. This comes from the sheer number of tons of beef which Americans consume on a yearly basis as well as the fact that the alternative which is offered in our nation’s supermarkets, often times costs more than twice the price of beef which has been subjected with growth hormones.Coupled with this fact, the claims made by the Food and Drug Administration which states that the consumption of growth hormones is safe; many people will believe this to be the case and will blindly continue their previous eating habits with no con cern for what the rest of the world claims to be the dangers of eating such meats. The evidence which the FDA and other government sponsored organizations are more than ten years old and in some cases, are reaching twenty years old whereas the scientific research which has compelled the European Union as well as Japan to implement bans on the trade of US beef, is much more recent.This fact alone should at least compel Americans to ask the question: â€Å"How safe is the meat and milk which comes from cows who are treated with growth hormones. † There is a push for more organic foods as well since many believe that the injection of hormones in not only beef but also our nation’s fruits and vegetables in order to grow gigantic and unnatural tomatoes and potatoes, can only create further health concerns as it is believed that the consumer is consuming a higher percentage of chemicals and hormones than the natural elements of these fruits and vegetables which people seek t o help them maintain a healthy lifestyle.Growth hormones affect our nation’s beef supply in a number of different ways. First, it affects the life and health of the cow, affects the environment and the wildlife and fish through the fact that the hormone can be introduced to the environment though the feces of the animal as well as the resilient characteristics of the hormone itself, as well as affect the milk which the cow yields to the American public. As a result, major governing bodies in the world have placed a ban on beef, not only from America but in numerous parts of the world, where the cattle have been subject to growth hormones.It would behoove the entire American public to stress the importance of up to date scientific research in order to conclude that measures need to be put in place which will forever ensure that the food which we eat, is safe; safe not only for us but for the environment. WORKS CITED Carlson, Laurie An Informal Social History. New York: Ivan De e Publisher 2001 Meinkle, James Beef Hormones Contributes to Mad Cow Disease London: The Guardian July 5, 1998Narlikar, Armita The World Trade Organization London: Oxford 2005 Nelson, Gerald Genetically Modified Organisms in Agriculture New York: Academic Press. 2004 Naloff, Janet. Hormones: Here’s the Beef www. sciencenews. org Downloaded July 28, 2007 Penske, James. Beef Hormones Believed to Contribute to Health Concerns Charleston Times Courier June 8, 2005 www. FDA. gov United States Food and Drug Administration Downloaded July 27, 2007 www. USDA. gov United States Department of Agriculture

Eassy Rewrite Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Eassy Rewrite - Essay Example (Plutarch 28) This account is based on what was told to Plutarch’s own grandfather, which no doubt shaped Plutarch’s own view of Cleopatra. That Plutarch was not as impressed as Antony is obvious from his use of words like â€Å"squandered† and â€Å"incredible extravagance.† (Plutarch 28) Cleopatra’s fame, at least in the Western intellectual tradition, owes to a great extent her encounter with the Romans, and in particular Mark Antony amongst other leaders. This also means that the Roman perspective on Cleopatra and Egypt is shaped as much by these interactions, dealings and visits than other aspects of her rule and kingdom. This fame, however, was coloured by the Romans’ view of her as someone who led great men like Antony astray. She successfully captivated the attention of Antony as with Caesar earlier, but in Rome, for all her hospitality, she became â€Å"the victim of a vicious propaganda campaign† ( §1.3). At the heart of this unfortunate circumstance for Cleopatra was Octavian’s envy for and conflict with Antony. Thus, there are two opposing perspectives on Cleopatra. One is the affectionate perspective as indulged in by Antony, and the other is the negative picture portrayed by Octavian and much of the rest of Rome. In the end, the defeat of the former at the decisive battle of Actium allowed history to be largely swayed by viewing Egypt as an enemy of Rome, and Cleopatra as a seductress, enemy and loser. This negative characterisation of Cleopatra and Egypt were present in Octavian’s speech delivered before the battle. He gave the impression to his army that Egypt’s way of life was decadent, and that Antony had been â€Å"enslaved by [Cleopatra]†. (Cocceianus 54) Although Cleopatra’s effect Antony caused a deep impression and led him to develop close attachment, the wider and more lasting Roman view as promoted by Octavian and Plutarch, was one of

Sensitive mothering is essential to the social and emotional Essay

Sensitive mothering is essential to the social and emotional development of the child discuss this statement in the context of relevant developmental theory - Essay Example With respect to this, mothering is referred to as a mother’s style of interaction with her child. A mother should be available to the child and should overcome all the needs of the child. Generally, it is stated that a mother’s love and sensitivity creates a harmony among the two bodies and due to this mother-infant relationship is formed (Barnes, 1995). A mother should not only cater to the child needs but she must be sensitive, i.e. she must have the capabilities to correctly interpret her child’s signals, respond to them promptly and appropriately, and encounter fully to her child’s needs. Moreover, it is the mother’s early interaction with the child that leads to behavioral issues. A sensitive mother will produce socialized and self regulated children. Moreover, mothers who are more sensitive and responsive to a child will form a secure, adaptive attachment with their child. Whereas an insensitive mother who rejects or is under involved with her child development, will form an unsecured bond with her child. According to the research, it has also been seen that sensitive mothers do not only have more close relation with their child, but their infants are more dependant on their mothers as compared to any other. The child is not only less dependant on the teachers but they are also more competent with their pe ers and have a more cooperative attitude with adults as children. Thus a sensitive mother not only grooms its child but also builds self-confidence. Sensitive mothering also plays an important role in the child’s pro social and anti social behavior. Sensitive mothers have a strong association with a child’s obedience, impulse control, and self assertion. On the other hand, an insensitive mother is responsible for a child’s negative actions, because lack of love and care from mothers develop disobedience, rebellious and noncompliance nature within a child. Due to this it can be stated that sensitive mothering is extremely

Energy Expenditure and Lab Report Guide Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Energy Expenditure and Lab Report Guide - Essay Example In this case, the kilocalorie percentage was 26.3 percent from carbohydrate, and 73.7 percent from fat. The total energy expenditure from carbohydrate equaled 14.71 kilocalories multiplied by the 26.3 percent of the total kilocalories from carbohydrate, in the end equaling 3.87 kilocalories from cholesterol alone. The total energy expenditure from fat equaled 14.71 kilocalories multiplied by the 26.3 percent kilocalories solely from fat; in the end 10.84 kilocalories were from fat. The 10-min oxygen consumption, while exercising for our subject, was equal to 25.39 VO2 L/m. The average RER during our subjects exercise was .8952. The formula that was needed to calculate respiratory exercise ratio during exercise was the average Carbon dioxide production (VCO2) during exercise divided by the average oxygen consumption (VO2). When the RER sums up to .8952 the caloric equivalent to this was 4.924 kilocalories per liquid oxygen. Gross energy expenditure during exercise is calculated by taking 25.39-oxygen consumption multiplied by 4.924 caloric equivalents equaling a total of 125.02 kilocalories. The net energy expenditure of our subject that was 125.02 equals Gross energy expenditure plus the resting energy expenditure equals 139.73. To calculate the total resting energy expenditure derived from carbohydrate and fat you take the RER and find the percentage kilocalorie for both of them. The percentage kilocalorie that derived from carbohydrate was 67.5. The percentage kilocalorie that came from fat was 32.5. The energy expenditure from carbohydrates equaled to 139.73 kilocalories multiplied by 67.5 percent equaling a total of 74.07 kilocalories deriving from carbohydrates. The energy expenditure from fat equals 139.73 kilocalories multiplied by 32.5 percent equaling a total of 45.41 kilocalories from fat. This sort of testing can be applied

Research Paper on Stereotypes Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

On Stereotypes - Research Paper Example One understanding of stereotypes is that they emerge to exploit differences between competing groups. Stereotyping downplays similar characteristics and magnifies differences. One sees this occur among African-Americans, whose identity clearly goes more in-depth than racial background, as they are more American than African. However, American society consistently splits itself on lines of black vs. white. Another theory of stereotypes relies on psychological research and claims that for human beings it is too difficult to process all the nuances of individuality so stereotypes function to help cognitively organize groups of people. By assigning characteristics to large groups, it aids humans in simplifying, organizing, and predicting the society they function. As a result, there is decreased need to process new information that would distinguish people by individual traits. Sociologist Charles Hurst believes that, â€Å"†¦stereotypes (are) the lack of personal, concrete familia rity that individuals have with persons in other racial or ethnic groups. (Hurst 6).† In these regards, it’s clear that lack of familiarity encourages the lumping together of unknown individuals. Whatever the theory, it’s clear that stereotypes present a problem for society as they inhibit integration and function in large part to maintain a social caste system where upward mobility faces resistance. One can just view the cases of the maquilos workers on the Mexico – Florida border and the gender stereotypes they endured when attempting to receive fair and equitable wages and positions. Stereotypes are in direct opposition to our right as human beings to the pursuit of happiness and personal betterment. While stereotypes exist for a variety of reasons, it’s clear that there are a number of stereotypes that have emerged that are regularly believed by large groups of the general public. One of the major areas of stereotyping occurs in the area of gend er. In these regards, men are presented as needing to be concerned with sports and ‘manly pursuits. Oftentimes, there are stereotypes presented of woman, such as blondes as being outgoing and fun loving, while girls who read having a prudish edge. One comes to witness a great degree of gender stereotypes in phrases such as ‘you should never hit a girl’. As within such statements there is the belief that men should be weak and men physically strong. Another area of stereotyping occurs in terms of race. Race constitutes one of the major areas where stereotyping occurs. For instance, Mexicans are depicted as lazy, while Asians are depicted as being studious and career driven. Still more stereotyping occurs in regards to religion. If one speaks to individuals very familiar with sects of Christianity, for instance, they will oftentimes report that Baptists have different attitudes than Catholics or Lutherans. In addition, there are a wide variety of stereotypes regardi ng practitioners of Judaism, with these individuals being thought of as thrifty or intellectual. Finally, stereotyping also occurs in regards to people’s sexual preferences. In regards to sexual preference, gay individuals are oftentimes depicted as speaking with a lisp or doing fantastical or ‘fabulous’ things. They are also believed to wear specific types