Category: Reading homework help

  Step 2 – Conceptual Framework This step is worth 15% of your course grade and

 
Step 2 – Conceptual Framework
This step is worth 15% of your course grade and will be due November 15, 2024 by 11:59pm.
In Step 2, you will present the conceptual framework of your work by explaining what threshold concepts you are using to analyze the policy or media artefact you have chosen for this project (remember that you must draw on at least 2 threshold concepts from the course).
This write-up should be approximately 500-600 words (2-2.5 pages double-spaced). For each concept, first explain the concept (write as if you were explaining it to a classmate) and then offer a brief explanation of how you see its relation to the policy or media artefact you have chosen: why is social construction of gender/sex, intersectionality, privilege and oppression, or feminist praxis important to consider when thinking about this media artefact or policy? This explanation should draw on ideas from at least two readings from this course (remember to cite your sources, including page numbers).
Please upload your assignment to in PFD format.
Term Project
Your main writing assignment for Femst 20 is a 1,500 word work(approximately 6 pages, double-spaced) analyzing either 1) a policy OR 2) a piece of media that stands out to you in the context of Femst 20. (Final work will be due Dec. 9, see “Step 3” Assignment for more details.)
Option 1) Policy analysis
Choose a policy that impacts the politics of gender. For the purpose of this assignment, you should understand policy as a law, regulation, or procedure put into place by a government, organization, or other institution. For example, your analysis could focus on a federal or state law, a workplace policy, or a school regulation, among others.
You will analyze this policy in light of at least 2 threshold concepts explored in this course. Make sure you include important background information (where and when it was implemented; who developed the policy; the context, or supposed justification for why it was needed; who is ostensibly targeted by the policy and why; if there are any penalties / repercussions for violating the policy…).
Some questions you may want to think about: how does this policy privilege certain people or groups and exclude others? How does this policy construct or prescribe gender and/or gender roles? How does this policy affect people differently when gender intersects with race, class, ability, citizenship status, sexuality, and any other mode of privilege/oppression? How might you employ a feminist praxis to change this policy?
OR
Option 2) Media analysis
Choose a media or pop culture artifact that speaks to the content of this course. This could be a TV show, film, magazine, advertisement, piece of fictional writing, music video, visual art, comic book, advice column…  You should establish a fairly narrow focus so that you can closely analyze the details of your chosen media artifact: you are not analyzing how women are portrayed in television as a whole, or the gendered dynamics of advertising overall—both of these projects would take much more than 6 pages to complete.  Instead, think of focusing on a particular ad or ad campaign, an episode from a TV show, a specific issue of a magazine, or even a scene or excerpt of a film (or something of similar scope).
You will analyze this media artifact in light of at least 2 threshold concepts explored in this course. Include relevant background information (when and where it was published / aired / produced); by whom it was created; who the target audience is…).
Some questions you may want to think about: Where do you see gender in this media artifact? How does this media artifact construct or prescribe gender and/or gender roles? How diverse are the people / communities represented in this media artifact? What type of representation is there of gender, class, race, ethnicity, ability, nationality or citizenship status, sexuality, or any other mode of privilege/oppression? What message does this media artefact send about gender? How might you employ feminist praxis to interrupt or shift this message?

 post 1 reply of 450–600 words Discussion post below. Be sure to speak directly

 post 1 reply of 450–600 words Discussion post below. Be sure to speak directly

 post 1 reply of 450–600 words Discussion post below. Be sure to speak directly to the classmate  using “You said…” rather than “Logan said….” Also make sure to use correct Turabian footnote form. The name should be First Name Last Name, and I should see the exact page of the quote, rather than the spread of pages the journal article takes up in the journal.
A brief paragraph of your chosen ethical system.
        Ethics are a set of principles that guide a person with making decisions based on whether they are morally right or wrong. It can also affect the way people make decisions while living their lives. Utilitarianism is a non-Christian ethical system that focuses on the greatest amount of benefit that can be obtained. Utilitarianism encourages individuals to consider the impact of their choices on the broader community, promoting actions that maximize positive outcomes while minimizing harm. While it promotes efficiency and practicality in decision-making, utilitarianism can sometimes overlook the rights and dignity of individuals, as it may justify sacrificing one for the benefit of many. Utilitarianism is also compared to the term consequentialism, which is a theory that judges actions as being morally right or wrong (1). (126-word count)
 A brief paragraph explaining the chosen topic and why it’s controversial.
          The topic I chose was abortion. Abortion is a very controversial topic that we constantly hear about today, and especially with the upcoming elections. The question of whether terminating a pregnancy at any stage is inhumane, or whether it is acceptable due to the situation. The controversy largely stems from differing beliefs about when life begins, women’s rights over their bodies, and the societal implications of abortion. There are so many questions and different situations that make abortion a topic of an uncertain set of rules. Also, another reason this topic of abortion becomes controversial is because religion gets involved. One who usually has a religious background based on Christianity tends to be against abortion, but some tend to be for abortions depending on the different circumstances, which causes moral conflicts based on their religion. This multifaceted nature of abortion makes it a deeply personal issue, often tied to  individual experiences, beliefs, and values, which further fuels passionate discussions and divides communities. (162-word count)
      A thorough paragraph explaining how your ethical system would discern the right decision/action pertaining to the issue.
         The Utilitarian approach towards abortion would be based on the individual case. The individual would decide whether an abortion would be morally right when comparing it to the resulting outcome. When a woman seeks an abortion due to health risks, for example, an abortion would be considered the right thing to do if the mother’s life was in danger. The mother of an already established family would choose to have an abortion simply because if she continues with the pregnancy there is a high chance both her and her unborn child could possibly not survive the birth of the child. As this result, that would leave her other living children without a mother. Having an abortion would be the greatest benefit obtained in this situation based on the utilitarian ethic approach.  (131-word count)
A thorough paragraph relaying how a competing ethical system (If you hold to a Christian ethical system, then this would be a non-Christian ethical system, and vice versa) would attempt to answer the ethical dilemma, but that ends with an explanation of why it is an inadequate/wrong approach compared to your chosen system’s approach.
                In exploring a non-Christian ethical system, such as relativism, we see an approach that asserts that moral truths are not absolute but rather shaped by cultural, social, or personal contexts. Cultural relativism is based on the observation that different cultures seem to have different values (2). When faced with an ethical dilemma, a relativist would evaluate the situation based on the beliefs and values of the individuals involved, arguing that what is “right” can vary widely depending on one’s background or perspective. For instance, in a situation where one must decide whether to betray a friend for personal gain, a relativist might argue that if the betrayal aligns with one’s cultural norms or individual goals, it can be justified. In contrast to a Christian ethical system, which emphasizes love, compassion, and the inherent dignity of every individual as rooted in divine creation. (142-word count)
                                                                                                      References
                 Mandal J, Ponnambath DK, Parija SC. Utilitarian and deontological ethics in medicine. Trop Parasitol. 2016 Jan-Jun;6(1):5-7. doi: 10.4103/2229-5070.175024. PMID: 26998430; PMCID: PMC4778182. 
                Doug Powell, Holman QuickSource Guide to Christian ApologeticsLinks to an external site. (Nashville, TN: Holman Reference, 2006), 73.

 Books Chapters1-13 INVITATION TO Christian Ethics Moral Reasoning and Contempo

 Books
Chapters1-13
INVITATION TO Christian Ethics Moral Reasoning and Contempo

 Books
Chapters1-13
INVITATION TO Christian Ethics Moral Reasoning and Contemporary Issues KEN MAGNUSON  https://app.logos.com/books/LLS%3ANVTTNCHRSTNETHCS/references/page.359 
OVERVIEW
In preparation for the Ethical Issue , you will submit a topic and
Turabian bibliography that relates to an ethical issue that has been presented in the curriculum. It
should be an issue that you are willing to think and write critically about, free of emotionally
driven and ungrounded opinion statements.
INSTRUCTIONS
Rae’s 7-step model presented near the end of the 2nd Chapter of Magnuson will be used, in
conjunction with Magnuson’s own supplementary thoughts, to complete the assignment. You
will select a topic along with at least 2 academic sources that relate, as well as one Bible passage
that might be relevant to the subject. Click on the assignment link and provide a 75–150 word
explanation of your topic along with your scholarly sources. Sources should be cited in a
Turabian bibliographical format (Examples below).
If the instructor does not approve your topic, and reassigns the assignment, you can review the
feedback, make the necessary adjustments, and resubmit. A title page and table of contents and
footnotes will not be necessary for this assignment.
Note: Your assignment will be checked for originality via the Turnitin plagiarism tool.
Turabian Bibliographical Examples:
Jones, Michael S., Mark J. Farnham, and David L. Saxon. Talking About Ethics: A
Conversational Approach to Moral Dilemmas. Grand Rapids: Kregel Inc, 2021.
Rae, Scott B. Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2018.

 Books Chapters1-13 INVITATION TO Christian Ethics Moral Reasoning and Contempo

 Books
Chapters1-13
INVITATION TO Christian Ethics Moral Reasoning and Contempo

 Books
Chapters1-13
INVITATION TO Christian Ethics Moral Reasoning and Contemporary Issues KEN MAGNUSON  https://app.logos.com/books/LLS%3ANVTTNCHRSTNETHCS/references/page.359 
OVERVIEW
In preparation for the Ethical Issue , you will submit a topic and
Turabian bibliography that relates to an ethical issue that has been presented in the curriculum. It
should be an issue that you are willing to think and write critically about, free of emotionally
driven and ungrounded opinion statements.
INSTRUCTIONS
Rae’s 7-step model presented near the end of the 2nd Chapter of Magnuson will be used, in
conjunction with Magnuson’s own supplementary thoughts, to complete the assignment. You
will select a topic along with at least 2 academic sources that relate, as well as one Bible passage
that might be relevant to the subject. Click on the assignment link and provide a 75–150 word
explanation of your topic along with your scholarly sources. Sources should be cited in a
Turabian bibliographical format (Examples below).
If the instructor does not approve your topic, and reassigns the assignment, you can review the
feedback, make the necessary adjustments, and resubmit. A title page and table of contents and
footnotes will not be necessary for this assignment.
Note: Your assignment will be checked for originality via the Turnitin plagiarism tool.
Turabian Bibliographical Examples:
Jones, Michael S., Mark J. Farnham, and David L. Saxon. Talking About Ethics: A
Conversational Approach to Moral Dilemmas. Grand Rapids: Kregel Inc, 2021.
Rae, Scott B. Moral Choices: An Introduction to Ethics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2018.

 post 1 reply of 450–600 words Discussion post below. Be sure to speak directly

 post 1 reply of 450–600 words Discussion post below. Be sure to speak directly

 post 1 reply of 450–600 words Discussion post below. Be sure to speak directly to the classmate  using “You said…” rather than “Logan said….” Also make sure to use correct Turabian footnote form. The name should be First Name Last Name, and I should see the exact page of the quote, rather than the spread of pages the journal article takes up in the journal.
A brief paragraph of your chosen ethical system.
        Ethics are a set of principles that guide a person with making decisions based on whether they are morally right or wrong. It can also affect the way people make decisions while living their lives. Utilitarianism is a non-Christian ethical system that focuses on the greatest amount of benefit that can be obtained. Utilitarianism encourages individuals to consider the impact of their choices on the broader community, promoting actions that maximize positive outcomes while minimizing harm. While it promotes efficiency and practicality in decision-making, utilitarianism can sometimes overlook the rights and dignity of individuals, as it may justify sacrificing one for the benefit of many. Utilitarianism is also compared to the term consequentialism, which is a theory that judges actions as being morally right or wrong (1). (126-word count)
 A brief paragraph explaining the chosen topic and why it’s controversial.
          The topic I chose was abortion. Abortion is a very controversial topic that we constantly hear about today, and especially with the upcoming elections. The question of whether terminating a pregnancy at any stage is inhumane, or whether it is acceptable due to the situation. The controversy largely stems from differing beliefs about when life begins, women’s rights over their bodies, and the societal implications of abortion. There are so many questions and different situations that make abortion a topic of an uncertain set of rules. Also, another reason this topic of abortion becomes controversial is because religion gets involved. One who usually has a religious background based on Christianity tends to be against abortion, but some tend to be for abortions depending on the different circumstances, which causes moral conflicts based on their religion. This multifaceted nature of abortion makes it a deeply personal issue, often tied to  individual experiences, beliefs, and values, which further fuels passionate discussions and divides communities. (162-word count)
      A thorough paragraph explaining how your ethical system would discern the right decision/action pertaining to the issue.
         The Utilitarian approach towards abortion would be based on the individual case. The individual would decide whether an abortion would be morally right when comparing it to the resulting outcome. When a woman seeks an abortion due to health risks, for example, an abortion would be considered the right thing to do if the mother’s life was in danger. The mother of an already established family would choose to have an abortion simply because if she continues with the pregnancy there is a high chance both her and her unborn child could possibly not survive the birth of the child. As this result, that would leave her other living children without a mother. Having an abortion would be the greatest benefit obtained in this situation based on the utilitarian ethic approach.  (131-word count)
A thorough paragraph relaying how a competing ethical system (If you hold to a Christian ethical system, then this would be a non-Christian ethical system, and vice versa) would attempt to answer the ethical dilemma, but that ends with an explanation of why it is an inadequate/wrong approach compared to your chosen system’s approach.
                In exploring a non-Christian ethical system, such as relativism, we see an approach that asserts that moral truths are not absolute but rather shaped by cultural, social, or personal contexts. Cultural relativism is based on the observation that different cultures seem to have different values (2). When faced with an ethical dilemma, a relativist would evaluate the situation based on the beliefs and values of the individuals involved, arguing that what is “right” can vary widely depending on one’s background or perspective. For instance, in a situation where one must decide whether to betray a friend for personal gain, a relativist might argue that if the betrayal aligns with one’s cultural norms or individual goals, it can be justified. In contrast to a Christian ethical system, which emphasizes love, compassion, and the inherent dignity of every individual as rooted in divine creation. (142-word count)
                                                                                                      References
                 Mandal J, Ponnambath DK, Parija SC. Utilitarian and deontological ethics in medicine. Trop Parasitol. 2016 Jan-Jun;6(1):5-7. doi: 10.4103/2229-5070.175024. PMID: 26998430; PMCID: PMC4778182. 
                Doug Powell, Holman QuickSource Guide to Christian ApologeticsLinks to an external site. (Nashville, TN: Holman Reference, 2006), 73.

 A reply of 450-550 words to this discussion post. Make sure to speak directly

 A reply of 450-550 words to this discussion post. Make sure to speak directly

 A reply of 450-550 words to this discussion post. Make sure to speak directly to your classmate using “You said…
As a Christian, I hold to the Christian ethical system. In the world today, it is very hard to stand firm while everything around you is wavering. Our culture contains so many different views and everyone holds to “their own” ethical system or beliefs. I look to the Bible for the standards and truth I need. It gives me a depiction of right from wrong, and also brings encouragement as the world around is broken. 
                       A big issue in today’s society is sexual morality. “Sex before marriage” is a hot topic and very controversial among Christians and Non-Christians. According to Magnuson, sex is “the pursuit of pleasure” (Invitation to Christian Ethics, page 152). Many Christians hold to the Bible and believe that sex before marriage is wrong. However, the world seeks after pleasure in whatever capacity they can find. They believe that the pleasure found in sex should be enjoyed whenever, with whoever. So the issue is plain an obvious. Which standard will you hold too? A big thing that gets overlooked, is the fact that Christians still struggle to withstand the temptation of sex before marriage. All humans have an inherently sinful nature, whether they’re Christians or not. 
                   The Christian ethical system would bluntly say that sex before marriage is wrong. The Bible explains that we should flee from sexual immorality, and specifically states that we were each created for one man/woman. We shouldn’t give our selves to several people, because it defeats the purpose of intimacy. It also can affect your psychological state, when you have sex with multiple partners. Although it may seem a little to rigid or old fashioned to save your purity, it will have an affect on you in the long run. The main purpose, ultimately,  is to please God and obey His word; however, the other perks play an important role as well. By following this ethical system, you will be able to have an intimate relationship with one man or woman, while also being able to freely share your life with them knowing, you are the only two people who have seen this side of each other. It is a comforting fact to know this especially as a female. Trust can be hard, and having security in this aspect of life will ease the other struggles. Overall, this approach is Biblical, but also fruitful if you are looking for a relationship that will last through the hills and valleys of life. 
               While Christianity says no to sex before marriage, the world and the Non-Christian ethical system screams the opposite. They would explain that as long as both people are in a agreement, then there is no reason that you have to wait. Life is all about pleasure, right? Magnuson states this, “Sex before marriage is expected and accepted, for abstinence is understood to be unrealistic or even harmful”, (page 156).  The word unrealistic really captures the view this system takes. They think that not having sex freely is unrealistic, therefore you should have it with whomever you want whenever you want. Although this is a free lifestyle it seems very dull. The fact that you give yourself to so many people seems so uncomfortable. Their is no security or sense of intimacy in this system. Though their is a dilemma for most people, the answer looks plain an obvious. Wouldn’t you rather enjoy security with one man/ woman? And enjoy the pleasure of sharing love with them and only them? The world might convince you other wise, but follow the way of the Lord and withstand the schemes of the devil. Not to say it won’t be difficult to abstain from sexual immorality, but it will be worth it in the long run. So let the your future lead you and give you the strength to endure the difficulties you may face in this area of life. 
Ken Magnuson, Invitation to Christian Ethics: Moral Reasoning and Contemporary IssuesLinks to an external site., Invitation to Theological Studies Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic, 2020), 152, 156.