The World War I ( Wwi ) - 4059 Words

At the precipice of World War I (WWI), the United States Army enlisted the help of women nurses resulting in a growth of economic opportunities for women in the nursing field. Before the war women were confined to their stereotype of a being delicate, motherly, and fragile. The war served as an opportunity for women, including nurses, to prove themselves to be more than their stereotype and be involved in the community rather than always sitting behind a man. Propaganda encouraged women to be more involved in the war and soon the concept feminism was reinvented. Female nurses, however, were still struggling to change the minds of people against women taking an active role in society or the military. Nursing had always played an important†¦show more content†¦World War I (1914-1918) was one of the most gruesome wars in American history. It consisted mostly of trench warfare, war fought from trenches, and an estimated 30 million casualty count. It was hoped that this would be the end to all wars, however the armistice signed sparked World War II. World War I began when Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, and his wife were assassinated in a parade on June 28, 1914. This became the excuse for Austria-Hungary to attack Serbia. Austria- Hungary had an alliance with Germany upon declaring war on Serbia, who had an alliance with Russia. This resulted in a chain-reaction because their alliances had alliances with other nations, then they had even more alliances with other nation, so by the time Austria had officially declared war half of Europe was involved in the dispute due to their alliances with other nations, thus making it a world war. The war consisted of two opponents: the allied forces (France, Britain, and Russia) and the central powers (Germany and Austria-Hungary). It was often considered a war of attrition because for the first three years soldiers fought from their trenches. The trenches were separated by a vacant strip called no man’s land. the only

Why Do Fingers Prune in the Water

If youve had a long soak in a bathtub or pool, youve noticed your fingers and toes wrinkle (prune up), while the rest of the skin on your body seems unaffected. Have you ever wondered how it happens or whether it serves a purpose? Scientists have an explanation for the phenomenon and have proposed a possible reason for why it happens. Why Skin Prunes in Water The prune effect is different from true wrinkling of skin because the latter results from the degradation of collagen and elastin, making the skin less resilient. Fingers and toes prune, in part, because the layers of the skin dont absorb water evenly. This is because the tips of your fingers and your toes are covered with a thicker outer skin layer (the epidermis) than other body parts. However, most of the wrinkling effect is due to blood vessel constriction just below the skin. Nerve-damaged skin doesnt wrinkle, even though it has the same composition, so the effect may be a reaction to water by the autonomic nervous system. However, the hypothesis that wrinkling is under autonomic nervous system control doesnt account for the fact pruning occurs in cold water as well as warm water. How the Epidermis Reacts to Water The outer layer of your skin protects the underlying tissue from pathogens and radiation. Its also fairly waterproof. The keratinocytes at the base of the epidermis divide to produce a layer of cells rich in the protein keratin. As new cells are formed, the old ones are pushed upward and die and form a layer called the stratum corneum. Upon death, the nucleus of a keratinocyte cell involutes, resulting in layers of a hydrophobic,  lipid-rich cell membrane alternating with layers of hydrophilic keratin. When skin soaks in water, the keratin layers absorb water and swell, while the lipid layers repel water. The stratum corneum puffs up, but its still attached to the underlying layer, which doesnt change size. The stratum corneum bunches up to form wrinkles. While the water hydrates skin, its only temporary. Bathing and dish soap removes natural oils that would trap the water. Applying lotion can help lock in some of the water.   Hair and Nails Get Soft in Water Your fingernails and toenails also consist of keratin, so they absorb water. This makes them softer and more flexible after doing the dishes or bathing. Similarly, hair absorbs water, so its easier to over-stretch and break hair while its damp. Why Do Fingers and Toes Wrinkle? If pruning up is under nervous system control, it makes sense that the process serves a function. Researchers Mark Changizi and his colleagues at 2AI Labs in Boise, Idaho, demonstrated that wrinkled fingertips provide improved grip on wet objects and that the wrinkles are effective at draining away excess water under damp conditions. In one study, published in Biology Letters, subjects were asked to pick up wet and dry objects either with dry hands or after soaking them in warm water for half an hour. Wrinkles didnt affect the participants ability to pick up dry objects, but the subjects picked up wet objects better when they had pruned hands. Why would humans have this adaptation? Ancestors who got wrinkled fingers would have been better able to gather wet food, such as from streams or beaches. Having wrinkled toes would have made barefoot travel over wet rocks and moss less risky. Do other primates get pruney fingers and toes? Changizi e-mailed primate labs to find out, eventually discovering a photograph of a bathing Japanese macaque monkey that had wrinkled fingers. Why Arent Fingers Always Pruned? Since wrinkled skin offered an advantage manipulating damp objects yet didnt hinder abilities with dry ones, you may be wondering why our skin isnt always pruned. One possible reason might be that wrinkled skin is more likely to snag on objects. Its also possible that wrinkles diminish skin sensitivity. More research could give us additional answers. Sources Changizi, M.,  Weber, R.,  Kotecha, R.  Ã‚  Palazzo, J.  Brain Behav. Evol.  77,  286–290. 2011.Kareklas, K., et al. â€Å"‘Water-Induced Finger Wrinkles Improve Handling of Wet Objects.’†Ã‚  Biology Letters, The Royal Society.

Reading the Sopranos Free Essays

What has Carmela ever done for Feminism’? Introduction Feminism in a simple definition refers to women’s movements, and feminism is a subject that is on going which has become a forum for debate in relation to television and film. My main focus will be feminism in the television series ‘The Sopranos’ which will be used as a case study to examine the theory of feminism plus psychoanalysis and how it’s inflicted on the screen. An academic book that I have selected will allow me to approach feminism in ‘The Sopranos’ and I have also picked a certain chapter room the book â€Å"Reading The Sopranos’ Edited by David Leaver, chapter 3 What has Carmela ever done for Feminism’? Carmela Soprano and the Post-Feminist Dilemma. We will write a custom essay sample on Reading the Sopranos or any similar topic only for you Order Now This book will allow me to tackle the issues on feminism and psychoanalysis by using the case study and relevant examples. Feminism is seen as a form of defending women’s rights and making them equal with men, and Carmela attempts to oppose this on Tony by stating that she’s not asking for fifty/fly Just some support, â€Å"I’m not saying fifty/fifty, but Jeez† (Leaver, 2006. PAP). Carmela might blame Tony for the way she is Just a mother and housewife. Although if we look at this from a Marxist point of view they suggest that it’s not about men, it’s about the upper class. They are the reason for inequality and the reason why women and men are oppressed. Doesn’t anything ever change? â€Å", Carmela isn’t happy with the way things are she’s indirectly implying she wants more a career, to be able to work, although can’t have it because of her husband. Carmela Soprano isn’t asking to be the same as Tony, however Just some rights to give her a break, she contradicts herself as states she’s no feminist but wants some rights . Carmela doesn’t trust feminism that much as she relies on her husband, and has been dependent on him and doesn’t know what to do. She finds herself in a confusing position in terms of her life style as feminism has been given an unpleasant label by the media institutions makes her feel weary whether she should be a feminist or not. Carmela superficially strongly rejects that feminism is an elitist practice but she secretly inside believes that it is an elitist practice, the reason she rejects this is because she knows she will never be that so finds comfort in rejecting. That’s why here is a slight envious feel for her daughter, Meadow who might Just be on her way to her mother’s dreams. Psychoanalysis developed by Sigmund Freud is the behavior of people, the drives of the unconscious. Tony and Carmela often suppress things and let them slide through to the unconscious suppressing their emotions. Psychoanalysis asserts that the lead to the development of adult emotional problems. (do in my own words and relate it to Corpsman feminism psychoanalysis) In ‘The Sopranos’ we are presented with different types of women in regards to feminism. To some degree women are vital in demonstrating and driving the reiterative forward, as without them the concept changes in terms of genre and other aspects such as storyline as it will Just be a bunch of criminal men. Feminism has always been a key factor in such gangsters films such as ‘The Sopranos’, ‘Godfather’ (1972) directed by Francis Ford Copula, and ‘Godlessly’ (1990) directed Martin Scores including many more as women play a crucial role as they reveal the men’s persona away from the criminal, adulterous activities in their daily lives. Carmela Soprano married to Tony Soprano is aware of Tony’s activities that he undertakes with his fellow friends, including his business that consists of a strip club named â€Å"Bad Being†. Tony is involved in what would be called organized crime and adultery, which Carmela knows about, however it seems that Carmela is refusing to accept what Tony does yet she doesn’t refuse the lifestyle as well as money considering where it comes from. She attempts to balance the bad aspects of her life by doing charitable deeds for friends, the priest, however she ends up contradicting herself. When she indirectly threaten a women (name, episode and series) to write a commendation letter to a college for her daughter, Meadow. ( quote from the book) Gangsters films compose of a similar narrative that is driven by set codes and conventions. Films that are similar to ‘The Sopranos’ are ‘LA confidential’,goodwill’s’ and the ‘Godfather’ they all share similar qualities when talking about feminism. Having read the book based on Carmela Soprano, she appears as a confused character that isn’t too sure of what she wants, she’s an indecisive person. Carmela is in compromise as she chose this lifestyle, â€Å"but Carmela is no victim† (Leaver, 2006. PAP) there’s no doubt about that she’s not a victim. Carmela appears as a victim, although everything she does she does willing and with thought behind it. How to cite Reading the Sopranos, Papers

The History of French Filmmaking free essay sample

A History of French Filmmaking begins its long journey through time in the 1800’s before cinema was invented. Williams explains that the three necessary aspects of film were to come, the â€Å"bricolage† meaning the analysis of movement, the optical synthesis of movement, and photography. There were many important people over the course of this book that had huge influences on putting together the bricolage as well as path that this most popular media traveled. Williams begins with men such as Niepce in his success of inventing the start of photography, then Daguerre who improved it, Plateau’s construction of an apparatus that showed the synthesis of motion called the Phenakistoscope, all the way to Thomas Edison’s final contribution to make film possible, the Kinetoscope. Williams continues through time to the Lumiere brother’s major influence until the film industry began. Film started off as a spectacle in France at fairs much likes freak shows and wax museums. Williams moves on explaining the development of turning cinema from a spectacle into what it is today. He goes over the beginning of genre’s or â€Å"series†, the dramas that ensued with money, monopolies, huge fires from the flammable theaters and eventually the wars that influenced a lot of change in this important industry. We learn about the transformation from silent to talkies and even the anti-Semitism that forced many Jewish filmmakers/actors to never trust France again. Williams takes the reader to France’s significant film noir and New Wave styles that show the aftermath of the war on its people and eventually ends with another important media that is quite influential today, television. Although this book is filled with many names and many details, it truly deserves the name ‘A History of French Filmmaking’. After reading this book, it is clear that without France, film might not be what it is today. Although when one thinks of cinema, they might right away think of Hollywood, but there are many people, movies, and studios that started in France that made Hollywood possible. To start, the Lumiere brothers, mostly Louis, were not only able to record film, but they were able to project it as a show for an audience. Although these films were not necessarily long feature length films, Louis showed great art in his films and even made many color slides in his films. The next person to take film to a different level was Melies who not only discovered â€Å"substitution splicing† but he made films about magic, he â€Å"†¦Anticipated Surrealism† (37), and was like the first â€Å"movie star† of his time. After the Lumiere business died down, the one to take over was Pathe. He hired Ferdinand Zecca, an important filmmaker, as well as created the first genres or at that time was called â€Å"series†. Examples of these are outdoor views, comic scenes, sports and acrobats, and dances and ballets. Pathe tried to monopolize the film industry but instead â€Å"†¦The second consequence of Pathe’s bid for monopoly was to encourage the competition† (53). Pathe’s competitor, Leon Gaumont was not only influential in his decisions to use real locations unlike Pathe’s films, but he hired one of the most important French film producers, Alice Guy. â€Å"Alice Guy is one of the most significant figures in the entire history of French Cinema. Despite her great influence, frustratingly little is known about her actual work at Gaumont† (55). Williams explains how Guy was great at saving money during productions, which was very important then and now in film production. Another important name mentioned was Max Linder, the first big comedic star who later influenced one of the biggest comedic names of all time, Charles Chaplin. Willaims goes on to explain many other studios in French Film’s beginning, one being Film d’Art. Although this eventually became less significant over time, it was interesting that this was directed towards the upper middle class instead of the population as a whole. There were many, many other names that Williams goes into great detail and background about, but there are certain names that must be mentioned. One in particular is Jean Epstein. â€Å"Epstein’s efforts to contribute meaningfully to the development of the film medium were often constrained by his producers’ notions of what would sell† (123). But Epstein would not succumb to money over art so he opened his own production company. He created historical dramas, documentaries, but most of all he was able to move from silent to talkie films successfully unlike many over silent filmmakers. Next is Rene Clair. Clair, being one of the filmmakers who experienced the war, brought that into his early work but he also made fantasy comedies and was not opposed to mainstream films. â€Å"Clair’s work demonstrates there was no hard and fast line of demarcation between mainstream commercial cinema and self-consciously artistic filmmaking during the silent film’s last decade. French cinema of the 1920’s was remarkably diverse† (135). Williams explained that unlike other filmmakers, Clair was willing to compromise by exploring different styles. Another very influential name who was not afraid to try many things nor stand up for what he believed in was Jean Renoir. Rene Clair and Jean Renoir were both successful in the silent and the talkie eras. â€Å"Sound film changed these men’s work bringing to it consistency, force, and a new means of storytelling that audiences and critics alike found compelling and satisfying† (186). Renoir had a love for actors, which many people later followed (especially in present day), but he was also against the anti-Semitism that plagued France during the second World War and even stood up to one of the most powerful Nazis, causing him to leave France for America. Williams explains in a large part of the book how both of the wars, in different ways, had a very big impact on film, both good and bad. Renoir was bold in his filmmaking, not afraid of violence as well as techniques in films such as ‘Rules of the Game’ with great long takes and deep focus. The way that Alan Williams created this text was very uniform all the way through. It was bold of him to write a book that should be an entire textbook of knowledge and fit it into merely 400 pages, but he did it well and the read was not hard to follow. Williams does a nice job of introducing almost every new important player in the book by giving a bit of background knowledge on each one. There is a huge advantage to doing this because the reader is able to get a feel for the people he is talking about. We learn about Louis Lumiere’s physical ailments as well as his father’s poor marketing skills. We learn that Rene Clair wanted to be a poet before he became a journalist, filmmaker, and critique. Williams also does a nice job of separating each person with more of the story of France during this time and how the changes of the film industry continued. The disadvantage of writing in this way is there is a lot of information that can get lost along the way. Not only is the reader bombarded with lots of information that can get confusing, especially if they are not familiar with French names or words along the way, but there are also ideas that can be missed when concentrating so much on the people who made the films, both significant and not. For example, the concept of Nation Cinema is explained in depth in Susan Hayward’s French National Cinema. She poses a very interesting uestion, â€Å"Since the history of cinema coincides with this hundred-year span, it invites the following questions: to what extent and how does cinema reflect the texture of a society on a national level? † (15). In Williams book, we learn all about the development of cinema, the important players in that development, and peripheral influences on cinema, but he never explains how the people of the nation of France were as a whole when film came about. What is national cinema? Don’t the viewers play an important role in national cinema? Williams is missing the other side to the story. We know how the wars, monopolies, and fires influenced the filmmakers, but what about the film watchers? This must be because the target audience for this book is not necessarily people looking for French history. The target audience must be only people looking to see how film developed in France, most likely film students. Being a film student myself as well as a cinema minor, this book was very enjoyable to read. There were many aspects of the book that both surprised me and stood out. First was Williams multiple explanations of Thomas Edison’s impact on cinema. I not only found out that he was a big player in the development of film, but I also discovered that for a genius, he made a lot of bad moves. He not only took complete credit that should have been shared with his assistant Dickson, but he misjudged the industry that he helped start. It seemed as though he was more interested in monopolizing the business instead of seeing its true potential, which hurt him in the end. Another discovery that I found interesting was Williams many mentions of hard work. He explained that the â€Å"†¦Gaumont company valued hard work and compensated it well† (68). He also mentioned that, â€Å"One secret of Linder’s success was that he put twice as much time, effort, and thought into each film as did his competitors† (60). He also mentioned on many occasions the success of different filmmakers by their attention to detail like Louis Lumiere, or their fearlessness like Clair, Renoir, and specifically Jean-Luc Godard’s Breathless. This was not a discovery to me but more of an interesting theme that I continued to spot as the book moved forward. I don’t know if this something that Williams is trying to preach, but it is obvious that he values hard work, bravery, and boldness in cinema. I think this was important for Williams to do. It not only gives credit to the people he clearly studies and cares much about, but it credits the industry as a whole. Not everyone can make a movie and make it well. Now knowing The History of French Filmmaking I can confidently say a lot went into the development of this media, and seeing what the film industry is today, it was well worth it.