The Poem “Barbie Doll” by Marge Piercy is about a girl who struggles with her body image. The speaker in the poem acts as an observer; watching the girl encounter different experiences as it related to her body image. Today’s generation is much similar to the life of the girl in this poem. Girls are forced to keep up with rising standards that are overwhelming and destructive. This poem uses form, imagery, and word choice to express how society chooses not to accept girls who do not represent the “ideal” woman. The form of the poem was written in a free verse style.
It consists of four stanzas and each stanza tells a different part of the girl’s life. The first stanza sets the scene. It began with a description of the child as a normal child who is no different from any other child “This girlchild was born usually. ” (Piercy, 1963, line 1). Lines five and six in the first stanza served as a transition from a happy young girl playing with Barbie toys to an adolescent girl who is being judged by society. The second stanza explained the affect society has on the girl’s life despite how perfect she was on the inside.
The third stanza showed how society compels the perfectly healthy girl into unhealthy habits, only to be accepted. At the end of the third stanza, the girl paid the ultimate price to be accepted into society. The last stanza served as a conclusion where the only way society could accept the girl as if she was perfect. This formation showed the audience step by step explanations of why a young girl with self-doubt issues would result to such a drastic ending decision. Furthermore, this poem uses imagery to interpret the theme. The imagery helps the reader picture the perfect woman in the eye of society.
In stanza two for example, “presented dolls that did pee-pee and miniature GE stoves and irons and wee lipsticks the color of cherry candy. ” (Piercy, 1963, lines 2-4). These lines present toys that girls play with, which also represent societies expected duties of a woman to cook, iron, and be beautiful. In the third stanza, “she was advised to play coy, exhorted to come hearty, exercise, diet, smile and wheedle. ” (Piercy, 1963, lines 12-14). The advice was given to her as a means to fit into society. Since she could not fit in, “she cut off her nose and her legs and offered them up. After making the changes, she then finds self-confidence and is finally accepted by society. “Doesn’t she look pretty? everyone said. Consummation at last. To every woman a happy ending. ” (Piercy, 1963, lines 23-25). In addition to imagery, Piercy also uses tone to reveal the theme of the poem. She begins the poem with a neutral tone. In the last two lines of the first stanza, she introduces complications when the young girl goes through puberty and the outcome is less than delightful. Here the tone is resentful, that anything less than perfect is flawed. The second stanza begins back in the neutral tone, but not as neutral.
The stanza begins with a list of qualities that the girl has, which is everything a “normal” happy girl could have; yet she still did not meet the norms of society. Then the tone changes in the last two lines to express a sense of frustration as the girl feels the need to go through life apologizing for her image. She was not what society expected a girl to look like and she slowly became a victim of society’s expectations. The third stanza is full of aggravation and frustration. The girl is fed up with her image and decides to have plastic surgery done to her nose and her legs.
She then dies but ultimately achieves a happy ending of finally being accepted by society. Through tone, Piercy helped the reader understand the meaning of the poem. In conclusion, it is clear that the poem’s sole purpose is for girls to realize that they do not have to live up to the “ideal” Barbie doll image that society expects them to be. Simply being them and surrounding themselves around the people who will accept them for the whole they truly are, will result in a happy ending.
References
- Piercy, M. (2009). Barbie Doll. In T. R. Arp, & G. Johnson, Perrine’s Literature: Structure, Sound, & Sense, Tenth Edition (pp. 754-755). Boston: Lyn Uhl.
Chemistry Module 6
Chemists believe that for compounds, atoms, or ions to react successfully, the particles must collide together. This is the basis for a scientific theory known simply as the collision theory This theory is based on the idea that the rate of a reaction is determined by the number of successful collisions that occur over a given amount of time. A successful collision is one that results in the making of the product(s).
The two factors are sufficient energy and correct orientation. These must be true for a given collsion to successfully result in the production of products.
The collision between reactants must have enough energy for the reactants’ valence energy levels to penetrate each other. This interaction between valence energy levels allows the electrons to rearrange to form new bonds. A Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution graph. The y-axis of the graph is labeled “number of particles,” increasing as you go up the axis, and the x-axis is labeled (energy), increasing left to right.
The shape of the graph is like that of a bell or hill, showing that the majority of the particles have a kinetic energy near the average kinetic energy of the sample, while some particles have more energy (far right of the graph) and some particles have less energy (far left of the graph). A Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution graph. The y-axis of the graph is labeled “number of particles,” increasing as you go up the axis, and the x-axis is labeled (energy), increasing left to right. The shape of the graph is like that of a bell or hill, showing that the particles in this area of the curve do not have enough energy to react when they collide.
However, the particles to the right of the activation energy value are the only particles in the sample with enough energy to possibly react when they collide.
When reactants come in contact with each other during their random movement, the orientation of their collision will determine if the collision is successful. The atoms from each reactant that will bond together to form the new products must come in contact with each other if a bond is going to form between them. The more complex a reaction is, the slower the rate of reaction.
For example, if more than two reactants need to collide together at the same time with correct orientation the reaction time would be slow. For the reaction between ethene (CH2CH2) and hydrogen chloride (HCl) to occur, the double bond between the carbon atoms in ethene must be broken. The double bond is converted to a single bond, allowing the carbon atoms to each bond with one of the atoms from the hydrogen chloride.
The reaction can only happen if the hydrogen end of the hydrogen chloride compound collides with the double bond between the carbon atoms of the ethene. Any other orientation will not be successful in producing the new product; the two reactants will just “bounce” off of each other.
For most reactions, there is no practical way to have an effect on the orientation of particles in collisions. However, there are ways that chemists can increase the number of collisions that have sufficient energy to successfully produce the products. Concentration and Rate For many reactions involving liquids or gases, increasing the concentration of the reactants increases the rate of reaction.
In a few cases, increasing the concentration of one of the reactants may have little noticeable effect of the rate. In reactions that involve two or more reactants, increasing the concentration of the reactants will increase the rate of the reaction. According to the collision theory, a reaction between two different particles can only happen if those particles collide together. If the concentration of reactants is higher, meaning there are more moles of reactants in a given volume, the chances of the particles coming in contact increases.
As the number of collisions between reactants increases, the number of successful collisions in a given amount of time will also increase. The greater the concentration of solute particles in the solution, the greater the chance of the solute particles colliding with the surface of the solid reactant. Be careful: We cannot assume that by doubling the concentration of one of the reactants you will double the rate of the reaction. The amount by which an increase in concentration increases the rate of a reaction depends on many different properties of the reaction. Temperature and Rate
Because temperature is a measure of average kinetic energy, we know that the temperature of a system will affect the number of collisions that have sufficient energy to react. You have experienced the effects of temperature on rate if you have ever cooked something on the stove top or in the oven. You know that increasing the temperature at which you cook your dinner increases the rate of the cooking process. This can be a great time saver, but you need to be careful that you don’t end up burning your food! Increasing the temperature of a system increases the rate of a reaction.
This direct relationship between temperature and rate is due to two reasons, both related to the collision theory.
- Increasing the temperature of a system increases the average kinetic energy of the particles. This means more collisions between the reactants will have enough energy to react successfully.
- Increasing the temperature of a system increases the kinetic energy of the particles, meaning that the particles are moving faster. This means that there are more collisions per minute at a higher temperature than there are in the same system at a lower temperature.
Having more collisions in a given amount of time means there are more opportunities for collisions to meet both requirements for success. As you can see on the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution curve below, a slight increase of temperature changes the distribution of energy in a sample. Although a slight increase in temperature (T2) may only increase the average kinetic energy by a small amount, there is a significant increase to the number of particles that meet and exceed the activation energy requirement for a given reaction.
Catalysts and Rate We have seen that an increase in temperature increases the rate of a reaction; if a reaction does not happen fast enough at normal temperatures, raising the temperature can help get the job done in less time. However, sometimes it is not possible to raise the temperature when we need a reaction to occur at a faster rate. In industrial settings, scientists need to keep safety and cost in mind, and so sometimes cannot exceed a certain temperature. In your body, living cells can only survive within a narrow temperature range.
Raising the temperature within the cells to speed up the necessary chemical reactions would result in damage to the very cells that the reactions support. So, how do we get the complicated biochemical reactions in your body to occur at a sufficient rate to keep you alive without raising the temperature to a point that would kill the cells you are trying to support? Thankfully, your body contains a variety of enzymes that speed up the rate of these reactions without the need to raise the temperature. Almost every important biological reaction occurs in living organisms with the assistance of an enzyme.
Enzymes are biological catalysts. A catalyst is a substance that speeds up a reaction without being consumed by the reaction. Catalysts are important in many biological and industrial reactions where the speed of a reaction is important but temperature cannot exceed a certain range. So, how do catalysts manage to speed up a reaction without adding heat to increase the temperature? If temperature cannot be increased to meet the activation energy requirement of a given reaction, another way to speed up the reaction is to provide an alternative reaction pathway with a lower activation energy requirement.
As you can see in the potential energy diagram below, a catalyst provides a different pathway between reactants and products that requires a lower amount of activation energy. Imagine you are hiking through the woods and there are two paths that will take you to your destination. The main path requires you to climb a steeper hill than the alternate path. Both paths take you to the same exact destination; the alternative path just requires less energy to get there. That is how a catalyst works: It provides an alternative path to the same final products but requires less activation energy to get there.
The lower activation energy requirement of this alternative reaction pathway results in a larger percentage of the given collisions between reactants that will be successful and produce products. Notice in the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution curve below that the lower activation energy requirement of the catalyzed pathway allows many more particles to meet the energy requirement for a successful collision without any increase in temperature. Did You Know? Some substances, called inhibitors, actually decrease the rate of catalyzed chemical reactions.
They do this by interfering with the catalysts’ ability to participate in the reaction. Many biological poisons are inhibitors that interfere with the enzymes in your body. Speeding up a Reaction If all the students in a math class are about to take a very tough exam, what are the possible ways to increase the percentage of the class that successfully passes the exam with a grade of C or higher? If all the students work hard studying and practicing for the test, they would probably see an increase in the number of students who pass the exam successfully.
Another option is for the teacher to lower the standard for a C on the grading scale. If your teacher changed the grading scale to make 55 percent the requirement for a C grade, it would be easier for more students to earn a C or higher with less effort on their part. This story gives an analogy for the two main ways we can increase the rate of a chemical reaction. Just as increasing the effort made by the students will result in more students successfully meeting the grade requirement of a C, increasing the temperature of a system allows more particle collisions to meet the energy requirement for a successful collision.
On the other hand, lowering the standard for a passing grade can also increase the number of students who successfully make the grade. This is how a catalyst works. Lowering the activation energy requirement of a reaction allows more collisions to be successful without changing any properties of the collisions themselves. Although using a catalyst to lower the energy standard in a chemical reaction is a common practice in chemistry, do not expect your teachers to lower their standards for your success anytime soon.
Some practice: e reaction shown below has a positive enthalpy change and a negative entropy change.
2C (s) + 2H2 (g) C2H4 (g)
The reaction will not be spontaneous at any temperature. Which of the following conditions will result in a reaction that is spontaneous only at low temperatures? negative enthalpy change and negative entropy change . Compare the following words. Which word best describes a scientific model? Analogy The collision theory states that the rate of a chemical reaction is determined by collisions occurring at the molecular level.
Which of the following will best help us visualize collision theory? A scientific model Scientific models help predict experimental results. The model of an ideal gas is useful because it approximates the behavior of most gas molecules. Catalytic converters on automobiles use the metals rhodium and platinum as catalysts to convert harmful gases to carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water. Which answer best explains why rhodium and platinum do not have to be continuously replaced in the system? The metals speed up the reactions but are not used up in the reaction.
Which of the following changes will always be true for a spontaneous reaction? Which of the following changes has a decrease in entropy?
3Fe (s) + 2O2 (g) Fe3O4 (g)
Which of the following combinations will result in a reaction that is never spontaneous? positive enthalpy change and negative entropy change Describe in detail what you expect for the changes in enthalpy, entropy, and free energy when a sample of liquid evaporates.
What factors did you investigate in your procedure, and why did you choose to compare these two factors? I checked if the amount of water and temperature would affect the rate of reaction. I learned that increased temperature means higher kinetic energy, which would affect the movement of the particles in the mixture. I was just really curious if the amount of water would have anything with dissolving the tablet.
What other factors did you need to control during your investigation? Explain how you controlled each one in your procedure. The water need to be controlled during the investigation. So I used filtered water for each procedure (except the ones that I had to heat up). The tablet had to be the same size for each experiment.
What is your prediction about the results of each trial in your lab? Explain your predictions based on your knowledge of the dissolving process, collision theory, and reaction rates. I hypothesize that the hotter water would have a faster rate of reaction than the one with the room temperature water. This will occur because the kinetic energy will cause the particles to move faster, causing them to collide more easily. I also hypothesize that the large amount of water would be cause the tablet to dissolve faster because the collision theory states that some factors such as the change in amount, progress, motion etc, can affect the rate of reaction.
Explain the collision theory, in your own words, and what is necessary for a collision to be successful. According to the theory, if the molecules in the reaction are allowed to collide more, the faster the reaction rate would be. In order for a collision to be successful, sufficient energy and orientation must be true for the collision to be successful.
A specific catalyst was not provided for this reaction, but catalysts are useful for increasing the rate of many slow reactions. In your own words, give a detailed explanation of how catalysts can increase the rate of a reaction or process. A catalyst can speed up the reaction rate, by allowing the reactants and products to collide to only require a lower amount of activation energy.
Comparing Social Determinants Of Self-Rated Health Across The United States And Canada
A large body of research shows that social determinants of health have significant impact on the health of Canadians and Americans. Yet, very few studies have directly compared the extent to which social factors are associated with health in the two countries, in large part due to the historical lack of comparable cross-national data. This study examines differences in the effect of a wide-range of social determinants on self-rated health across the two populations using data explicitly designed to facilitate comparative health researchdJoint Canada/United States Survey of Health. The results show that:
- sociodemographic and socioeconomic factors have substantial effects on health in each country, though the size of the effects tends to differdgender, nativity, and race are stronger predictors of health among Americans while the effects of age and marital status on health are much larger in Canada; the income gradient in health is steeper in Canada whereas the education gradient is steeper in the U.S.;
- Socioeconomic status (SES) mediates or links sociodemographic variables with health in both countriesdthe observed associations between gender, race, age, and marital status and health are considerably weakened after adjusting for SES;
- psychosocial, behavioural risk and health care access factors are very strong determinants of health in each country, however being severely/morbidly obese, a smoker, or having low life satisfaction has a stronger negative effect on the health of Americans, while being physically inactive or having unmet health care needs has a stronger effect among Canadians;
- risk and health care access factors together play a relatively minor role in linking social structural factors to health. Overall, the findings demonstrate the importance of social determinants of health in both countries, and that some determinants matter more in one country relative to the other.
As wealthy developed nations, Canada and the United States share many similarities in history, culture, and living standards and styles. The two countries also differ in other important ways, namely in the funding, organization, and delivery of health care and other social welfare programs, distribution of income, and social inequities, which likely have implication for health determinants within and between the two countries (Evans & Roos, 1999; Navarro et al., 2006; Siddiqi & Hertzman, 2007; Siddiqi & Nguyen, 2010). It is within this context that this study examines the effects of social determinants of health across Canada and the United States.
Stronks, van de Mheen, Looman, & Mackenbach, 1996), is not overly complex and lends itself to empirical analysis. Several studies in the U.S. have demonstrated support for the social determinants of health model. Using data from two national health and well-being surveys, Ross and Wu (1995) show that after controlling for sociodemographic factors (age, sex, race, and marital status) education was positively associated with self-rated health and level of physical functioning through work and economic conditions, psychosocial resources, and lifestyle.
Higher education led to more full-time employment and higher income, which in turn enhanced psychosocial resources and healthy lifestyle behaviours, and consequently better health. These findings are consistent with similar studies in the U.S. (e.g., House et al., 1990, 1994; Lantz et al., 1998; Ross & Bird, 1994). Research on social determinants of health in Canada has also revealed that social and economic factors interact with and shape psychosocial and behavioural factors, and, ultimately, health status (e.g., Birch, Eyles, & Jerrett, 2000; Denton, Prus, & Walters, 2004; Denton & Walters, 1999; Kosteniuk & Dickinson, 2003).
Cross-country comparisons of social determinants of health between Canada and the United States are also of interest given the social, economic, and cultural values shared by the countries yet the vastly different social welfare policies and programs in health care, income and employment security, and so on in each country. Intercountry research provides a unique opportunity to examine how such differences shape social determinants of health in the two nations. A few studies, by and large facilitated by the Joint Canada/ United States Survey of Healthdthe first survey of its kinddhave directly compared correlates of health across the two populations (Eng & Feeny, 2007; Huguet, Kaplan, & Feeny, 2008; Lasser, Himmelstein, & Woolhandler, 2006; McGrail, van Doorslaer, Ross, & Sanmartin, 2009; Sanmartin et al., 2006; Siddiqi & Nguyen, 2010; Siddiqi, Zuberi, & Nguyen, 2009).
Still, no research to date has explicitly compared a social determinants of health model across the countries. the current study examines the size and pattern of effects of social determinants on health in and across Canada and the U.S. using data from the Joint Canada/United States Survey of Health. It is expected that health is influenced by similar social factors in each country; however, the impact of the factors is likely different given the considerable differences in the social context and welfare policies of the two countries. U.S.-Canada comparative research on health outcomes has often encountered problems because of the lack of comparable data and/or sample design.
The Joint Canada/United States Survey of Health (JCUSH) was conducted by Statistics Canada and the National Center for Health Statistics between November 2002 and June 2003 to overcome these problems. Given the use of a single survey and a standard methodology across countries, the JCUSH provides a unique opportunity to directly compare social determinants of health across Canada and the U.S. Based on a stratified multi-stage probability sampling design, the JCUSH collected information through telephone interviews on health and illness, use of health services, correlates of health, and demographic and economic characteristics of individuals aged 18 years or older living in private residences in the ten Canadian provinces and the 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. Identical questions were asked to all sample respondents, except for those on race and health insurance given key differences between the countries on these variables (Statistics Canada & United States National Center for Health Statistics, 2004).
The JCUSH sample contains 3505 Canadians and 5183 Americans. Response rates were 66 percent in Canada and 50 percent in the United States. Despite the relatively low response, two recent studies showed that key characteristics, such as the age distribution, of the U.S. and Canadian samples in the JCUSH were quite similar to those in leading national health surveys in each country (Feeny, Kaplan, Huguet, & McFarland, 2010; Kaplan, Huguet, Feeny, & McFarland, 2010).
Health was defined using the concept of self-rated health (SRH). SRH indicates a respondent’s health status based on his or her own judgement. SRH is a very useful indicator of the overall health and well-being of individuals and populations. SRH is operationalized in the JCUSH as follows: “In general, would you say your health is: excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor?” It was grouped into three categories for purposes of analysis, “poor” (poor or fair), “good” (good), and “excellent” (very good or excellent), as has been done in many other studies of social determinants of self-rated health (e.g., Cott, Gignac, & Badley, 1999; Lantz et al., 2001; Manderbacka, Lahelma & Martikainen, 1998).
As a measure of health, the reliability and validity of self-rated health have been well-established (Idler & Benyamini, 1997). SRH provides a valid assessment of overall health (Idler, Russell, & Davis, 1992), and is a strong predictor of mortality (Mossey & Shapiro, 1982; Smith, Shelley, & Dennerstein, 1994; van Doorslaer & Gerdtham, 2003), disability (Mansson & Rastam, 2001), functional limitation (Idler & Benyamini, 1997), health-related behaviour (Cott et al., 1999; Manderbacka et al., 1998), and health care utilization (Pinquart, 2001). Banks, Marmot, Oldfield, and Smith (2006) find that self-reported measures of health are almost identical to those with biological measures such as physical and laboratory examinations.