250 word response. 2 apa citations
This week is a difficult one as many of the issues addressed are historical in nature, politically charged, and frankly, a bit vague; a lot of additional research was required to reach the root of these issues. To begin, let us address the pros and cons of each website and what they represent, then branch into one of the key issues and address the different viewpoints on them.
First the National Association for Multicultural Education, NAME, the website was well organized but served very little in the way of providing information regarding their initiatives or how they are truly helping. One can induce via the chapters among different states that they have wide-reaching arms but the website itself does little in the way of educating those who visit the website. Research showed little information outside their own website and subsequent chapters other than the conferences they hold, which are exceptionally expensive, along with their membership fees. To summarize, the website seems to be a ploy for money more than support for multicultural education, though, by attending one of these conferences, one’s opinion may change but by hiding this information behind a paywall, a majority of the disenfranchised folks they claim to help won’t be able to attend, thus the aforementioned vagueness. The pros of this organization is their widespread contact via email, phone numbers, and chapters distributed throughout the United States.
In contrast, the National Organization for Women, NOW, offered a plethora of fantastic information that was illuminating, such as the lack of ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, though additional research was conducted to achieve a well-rounded picture. The website itself is well organized and provides information regarding the issues ranging from reproductive rights to concerns of violence and equal pay. These issues don’t necessarily encompass just females, but overall equal rights for all humans, as shown by their advocacy for LGBTQIA and racial injustices. Despite this praise, there are downsides to the websites, the issues they discussed are often one-sided and full of political tensions, such as abortion laws by which one group could claim abortion violates the rights of the child, where as another group could claim limiting abortion violates the rights of the pregnant females.
Continuing on these political issues is the advocacy for the Equal Rights Amendment, to which I’m not sure why this is even an issue, equal rights seems to be an obvious idea; more research was required. In this research early factors against it included those who found it to take away some of the rights females had already earned, such as alimony, power in custody battles, and protection from drafts. More recent disapproval comes from the manner by which it was being included in the constitution that violated standard practice.
To be frank, I don’t understand the apprehension to the ERA short of financial concerns regarding business and health care costs. Perhaps the professor or student body can help shed some light.
In summary, the pros of the NAME include its ability to be reached and widespread chapters, its weaknesses include the vague and financially intensive manner by which it proposes to help people. The pros of the NOW include its high content of information and actual ways to address the issues they bring up. The downsides include the politically charged nature of some of the issues, such as abortion.