The globalization debate is based on the pro and against arguments, having strong arguments on the both sides. However, the strongest argument is inclined on the argument that the globalization is overlooking the fact that it is enhancing inequality and poverty among different countries across the globe. It is evident that the dramatic inequality especially between the advanced and developing countries is due to the processes of technology. While some social analysts argue that the globalization has brought about the economic growth and hence reduced poverty and facilitated economic equality, some argue that it has global division of labor that has resulted to income inequality.
On the economic view, the reduced barriers and tariffs created between the countries to facilitate connectedness has created income inequality. In other words, the income for the high-skilled workers, usually in developed countries has been increasing while the income for low-skilled workers, in developing countries has been deteriorating. In the advanced country, when the tariffs on the importable low-skilled products are reduced, the low-skilled goods become cheap, while the high-skilled products (domestic goods become expensive). Consequently, the high-skilled workers are compensated for the high priced products, therefore, increasing inequality. The income inequality is derived from the economic theory based on the Stolpher-Samuelson theorem.
The is an adverse relationship between the highly-publicized globalization events and the way they are portrayed by the media outlets. According to week 10 lecture, globalization is considered as “a social process that affects and relates to a range of different life spheres such as cultural, social, political, economic and environmental.” However, a globalization event carried out by global organization focuses on one element and neglects the others. For example, the protestors who have several concerns over the globalization affected the World Trade Organization. The environmentalists argued against ineffective Laws to protect the environment while the steel workers argued against the foreign steel damping as a result of globalization.
Despite the fact that nationalism can be used to unite people and the nations that are within the nation, there is an adverse side that it is associated with this ideology. Form the “Aussie Pride” meme, the nationalism, is described in the sense that the Australian national flag is displayed with interconnectedness elements on it i.e. the Union Jack, that comprises the three heraldic crosses that are represented in the United Kingdom. These crosses include, St George’s Cross of England, St Andrew’s Cross of Scotland and the St Patrick’s Cross of Ireland. This meme depicts that, these are the only countries endorsed by the nationalism in Australia. However, there green and yellow are the colours that are used by the Mauritian flag. This implies that the other countries are irrelevant and inferior to the Australian people. In other words, the other countries are eliminated because the Australians think that they are not worthy.
As a result, this is a dark side of nationalism because it prohibits a state from embracing the concept of globalization. The state cannot do on its own because it is affected by various global forces such as kinship networks, terrorism and environmental problems among others. Therefore, Australian cannot overlook this ideology because it is not bound to be affected by such global forces. Therefore, Australian needs the global community to help them solve the global issues that are common to various states irrespective of their status. For instance, in the international market, the currency that is commonly used is the US dollar. Therefore, Australia needs the United States the same way they need the countries in the Great Britain. In other words, the nationalism should not blind the Australian community beyond seeing the importance of each country, i.e. there is no country inferior to other.
The sentiment, “Environmental threats can lead to the end of our contemporary society as we know it” raises eyebrows to the environmentalists. In regard to the Sea Shepherd, an international non-profit organization, it has remained unmoved and solely focuses on doing away with the devastation of the marine habitat and the murder of wildlife in the oceans with an objective of conserving and protecting the ecosystems and species.
The Sea Shepherd Organization is aware of the danger posed by the environmental threats that seem to destroy and depreciate the value in the contemporary society. The Galapagos marine wildlife lies at a greater risk due to careless actions of humans to destroy the whales in the ocean and at the same time destroying the coral reefs. Human beings claim, “We are at the center of everything and can do whatever we like. This world belongs to humans.” Individuals are selfish with no interest to preserve the environment and they remain blind in speculating the effects from their uncouth actions.
A close examination about gender creates mixed reactions concerning masculinity and femininity. In relation to Norrie’s case, the court allowed the petitioner to be recognized as a non-specific sex. In several instances, it becomes hard to differentiate between gender, sex and sexuality. The mostly affected individuals are the hermaphrodites who carry both the male and female characteristics. Since time immemorial, the individuals with undefined sex were forced to choose between male and female for identity. In gender analysis, men are thought to be stronger than women who are perceived emotional. The ‘she’ gender is alleged to be the weakest and the responsibilities associated with it are lighter than those their counterparts perform.
In a bid to draw a distinction between sex and gender, sex is defined as the biological makeup of a person’s reproductive anatomy, whereas, gender is associated with the lifestyle of individuals. The differences are ignored by many people and in speech, the words are used interchangeably. It remains a challenge to distinguish between sex and gender, thus the needs to not only think about gender and norms, but its relationship to biological sex. The wrangles associated with sex and personhood made the Australian Court allowed people to be officially identified as a non-specific sex.
The sexually dimorphic traits have failed to address the complexity that arises between the sex and gender and this makes the situation more perplexing. Sexual selection seems to be controlled by the deeds of nature since it has remained to understand the real roots to produce and reproduce masculinity and femininity. Facts seem to offer insight on the need to combine the meaning of sex, sexuality and gender for a clear understanding on the way they function. The registrar of death, birth and marriages were amazed by the decision of the court to rule in favor of the petitioner.