Abstract
The topic of this paper is several problems that Nike Inc. has. Nike shoes and t-shirts included toxic chemicals. It argues that Nike Inc. should be admired. There are three reasons for this argument. First, Nike tries to save the environment. Next, the firm has an obligation to offer good-quality goods to people. Last, Nike is not afraid of risks.
Outline
Thesis: Nike Inc. should examine their products. Nike should offer safe products.
Ⅰ. Introduction
A. Holmes (2006), argues Nike shoes include greenhouse gas.
B. Their products include a strong greenhouse gas.
Ⅱ.Background
A. Why is it serious?
Ⅲ. Main Argument
A. Nike is a huge and rich company.
B. Nike should not used toxic chemicals.
C. Nike needs to do checks to stop these accidents.
Ⅳ. Conclusion
A. Thesis restatement
B. Four reasons
C. Nike should examine a few times before selling its goods.
Nike is one of the successful companies. The competitor of the firm is Adidas, but Nike actually exceeds Adidas. Many people like Nike’s products and sports players prefer Nike products because they have high functions. On the other hand, Nike Inc. faced several problems in the 20th century. One of the problems was toxic chemicals that Nike’s products contained. A German magazine pointed out that Nike’s products had a strong greenhouse gas, SF6 (Holmes, 2006). According to Holmes (2006, para. 4), “Because SF6 breaks up slowly in the atmosphere, it has an outsize impact when the shoes are finally destroyed and the gas is released from millions of little air pockets”. The chemical, SF6, does not influence people’s body, but our earth would get warmer. Nike makes a lot of products, so it is a problem. Besides, little toxics were found from Nike’s soccer t-shirts which were made in the U.K. in a few stores in 2000 (BBC Sport, 2000). Nike admitted the fact, but the firm did not know why toxics were on the shirts. However, Nike overcame these troubles.
Nike is a great and ecological company. Nike may not be recognized to be a green company now, but Nike should be admired by people for three reasons; its ecological efforts, obligations and taking risks.
The first reason is that Nike is an ecological company. In 2000, a German environmental magazine insisted that Nike products, Air Max, contained hazardous chemical substances that have greenhouse effects. Many companies or even government do not admit malignant facts. However, Nike did. In spite of the fact that Air Max was really popular among young people, the company stopped producing Air Max, which had the greenhouse gas. In the second incident, the firm withdrew the shirts that had a toxic chemical from some stores even if the amount of toxics were quite little and it did not affect people’s health. Holmes (2006, para. 3) said “’We wanted to do the right thing for the environment and for the athlete,’ says Hartge, 50, now Nike’s creative director for advanced research.” If Nike kept selling Air Max and the t-shirts, the firm could probably have big profits, but the company tries to save the environment.
Next, the company has obligation to its products. Nike has researchers and they improved their products in safe ways. To have researchers is an advantage because the firm can research anytime when researchers are needed, can know whether its products contain toxic chemicals or not and can improve its products to safe and ecological ones if there are any problems. When they faced the first problem, Nike’s researchers had researched for 14 years to offer make them safe products to customers. The researchers used nitrogen as a substitute, but it was easy to be broken. However, developing new air pockets were many tests, researchers finally completed the shoes with new air pockets. According to Holmes (2006, para. 9), “After much experimentation, the team was able to hold in nitrogen by sandwiching together 65 water-thin layers of plastic film (illustration).” Nike has responsibility to produce good products for people.
Last, the firm is a risk taker. In the first incident, Nike did not know whether the company could finish making new air pockets or not, but they spent money to research for 14 years. To succeed in a business, there are a few things that companies have to have. One of them is the taking risks that the business may be failed. This is kind of difficult, especially for big companies because big companies produce a large number of a product. If a product is about to fail, many companies would give up and produce new products. Nevertheless, Nike did not give up for 14 years. Nike will keep succeeding in the future, because the company can keep going for a long time without being afraid of failures.
In conclusion, Nike Inc. had several big problems before. Air Max, one of Nike’s hit shoes, had a greenhouse effect gas, SF6. Besides, a small amount of a toxic chemical was obtained on soccer shorts. The company did not know the cause, but they prevailed over the problems because Nike is ecological, has responsibility to offer safe products to people, and is a risk taker. Nike can do many things. The company should be regarded as a green, reliable and dynamic company.
References
BBC SPORT. (2000, January 07). Nike urges calm over ‘toxic’ shirts. BBC
News. Retrieved April 02, 2008, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/593721.stm
BBC SPORT. (2000, January 08). ‘No danger’ from toxic shirt traces. BBC
News. Retrieved April 02, 2008, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/595722.stm
BBC SPORT. (2001, February 22). Nike admits abuse at Indonesian plants. BBC
News. Retrieved April 02, 2008, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia -pacific/1184103.stm
BBC SPORT. (2005, February 10). Nike hits back at Neville claim. BBC News.
Retrieved April 02, 2008, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/sport2/hi/football/internationals/4252871.stm
Holmes, S. (2006, September 21). Nike Goes For the Green; After 14 years, it figures out how to get greenhouse gas out of its sneakers. Business Week. Retrieved March 24, 2008, from Lexis Nexis database.
Makower, J. (2005, March 06). Nike Things Considered. WORLD CHANGING.
Retrieved April 08, 2008, from http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/002282.html
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Use of Wikipedia in Academics
There is a big debate on use of Wikipedia in academics. I use Wikipedia when I write a paper or do my homework. Wikipedia is sometimes useful because it has a lot of information and international students can know American culture. However, it sometimes does not have enough information. I looked up ‘mixed capitalism’ in Wikipedia, but it does not have the term. It is difficult to decide if college students should use it or not for the above reasons.
Academics and college students should use Wikipedia for several reasons. It has both good and bad aspects; it has a lot of information, but anyone can compile the information on it.
First, there is no other Web site that can be an alternative Wikipedia. Wolverton (2007) said that Wikipedia is the ninth most popular Web page in the U.S., according to a firm that oversees Web traffic. This would be the biggest encyclopedia on the Internet. Therefore, students should be able to use it for their papers and homework.
Second, it would be more reliable for academics and other people if academics use it. According to Lengel (2006, para. 1), “The emergence of the World Wide Web as a source for student research is for many educators a worrisome development,” and make it look respectable. Academics and college students have more knowledge than the public, and they can add new information and correct errors on it.
Last, according to Martin (2008, para. 13), academics can prevent the fact that people post wrong information or censor Wikipedia. “Seven per cent of all internet users now visit the site every day.” Some people post wrong or malevolent information, but academics can help solve the problem if they use it. If academics start using Wikipedia, they would access it many times per week and they can correct wrong or inappropriate information. Another thing Wikipedia can do for solving the problem is to force people have accounts and sign in. Because it takes some time, fewer people would post bad information.
In conclusion, Wikipedia should be used in academic areas. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia on the Internet that has most accessibility. It would be more reliable and have less irrelevant information if academics start using it.
References
Lengel, J. (February 07, 2006). Authority. Teaching with Technology. Retrieved on April 23, 2008, from http://www.powertolearn.com/articles/teaching_with_technology/article.shtml?ID=12
Martin, N. (January 21, 2008). Wikipedia clamps down on ‘unreliable’ editors. Telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved on April 23, 2008, from http://telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/20/wiki120.xml
Wolverton, J. (January 22, 2007). Wikipedia Wisdom. Valley Vanguard. Retrieved on April 23, 2008, from http://www.svsu.edu/clubs/vanguard/stories/1141
Academics and college students should use Wikipedia for several reasons. It has both good and bad aspects; it has a lot of information, but anyone can compile the information on it.
First, there is no other Web site that can be an alternative Wikipedia. Wolverton (2007) said that Wikipedia is the ninth most popular Web page in the U.S., according to a firm that oversees Web traffic. This would be the biggest encyclopedia on the Internet. Therefore, students should be able to use it for their papers and homework.
Second, it would be more reliable for academics and other people if academics use it. According to Lengel (2006, para. 1), “The emergence of the World Wide Web as a source for student research is for many educators a worrisome development,” and make it look respectable. Academics and college students have more knowledge than the public, and they can add new information and correct errors on it.
Last, according to Martin (2008, para. 13), academics can prevent the fact that people post wrong information or censor Wikipedia. “Seven per cent of all internet users now visit the site every day.” Some people post wrong or malevolent information, but academics can help solve the problem if they use it. If academics start using Wikipedia, they would access it many times per week and they can correct wrong or inappropriate information. Another thing Wikipedia can do for solving the problem is to force people have accounts and sign in. Because it takes some time, fewer people would post bad information.
In conclusion, Wikipedia should be used in academic areas. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia on the Internet that has most accessibility. It would be more reliable and have less irrelevant information if academics start using it.
References
Lengel, J. (February 07, 2006). Authority. Teaching with Technology. Retrieved on April 23, 2008, from http://www.powertolearn.com/articles/teaching_with_technology/article.shtml?ID=12
Martin, N. (January 21, 2008). Wikipedia clamps down on ‘unreliable’ editors. Telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved on April 23, 2008, from http://telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/20/wiki120.xml
Wolverton, J. (January 22, 2007). Wikipedia Wisdom. Valley Vanguard. Retrieved on April 23, 2008, from http://www.svsu.edu/clubs/vanguard/stories/1141
Friday, April 25, 2008
Nike Is A First Company
Products of Nike Inc. contained toxic chemicals. In 1992, a German environmental magazine argued that Nike shoes had a strong greenhouse gas, SF6 (Holmes, 2006). Besides, Nike admitted that Nike football shirts had a little toxics in 2000 (BBC Sport, 2000).
Nike is a nice and ecological company. Nike acted responsibly and should be admired for three reasons.
The first reason is that Nike dealt with these problems. Some companies and even government never admit their faults, but the firm admitted their faults. In the first incident, they stopped producing Air Max, which had a greenhouse gas. In the second incident, the firm withdrew the shirts that had a toxic chemical from same stores. Nike coped with these problems quickly in both cases.
Next, they did not give up. They improved their products in safe ways. Nike has researchers. This is also a good thing because the firm can research any time it needs, can know whether its products contain toxic chemicals or not and can improve its products to safe and ecological ones if there are any problems. The researchers had researched for 14 years. To make new shoes, they faced a problem. New air pockets were easy to be broken. After many tests, they finally completed new shoes, Air max 360. Nike can keep making efforts for long time.
Next, the firm did the right thing to be green when they said they wanted to be that way. Nike knew that it would lose high profits by stopping producing Air Max. However, Nike stopped and researched for a long time because it had passions to be an ecological company and to offer high faculty shoes to athletes. Good companies have to have high motivation or goals to achieve. Nike did not care about its profits, and it can strive for what it wants to produce to people.
In conclusion, Nike had a few big problems in 2000, but they overcame the problems by dealing with them quickly, making efforts, and having strong passions. Nike can do many things. The company should be regarded as a reliable company.
References
BBC Sport. (2000, January 8). ‘No Danger’ of toxic traces shirts. BBC News.
Retrieved March 24, 2008, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/593721.stm
Holmes, S. (2006, September 25). Nike Goes For the Green; After 14 years, it
Figures out how to get greenhouse gas out of its sneakers. Business Week. Retrieved March 24, 2008, from Lexis Nexis Database.
Nike is a nice and ecological company. Nike acted responsibly and should be admired for three reasons.
The first reason is that Nike dealt with these problems. Some companies and even government never admit their faults, but the firm admitted their faults. In the first incident, they stopped producing Air Max, which had a greenhouse gas. In the second incident, the firm withdrew the shirts that had a toxic chemical from same stores. Nike coped with these problems quickly in both cases.
Next, they did not give up. They improved their products in safe ways. Nike has researchers. This is also a good thing because the firm can research any time it needs, can know whether its products contain toxic chemicals or not and can improve its products to safe and ecological ones if there are any problems. The researchers had researched for 14 years. To make new shoes, they faced a problem. New air pockets were easy to be broken. After many tests, they finally completed new shoes, Air max 360. Nike can keep making efforts for long time.
Next, the firm did the right thing to be green when they said they wanted to be that way. Nike knew that it would lose high profits by stopping producing Air Max. However, Nike stopped and researched for a long time because it had passions to be an ecological company and to offer high faculty shoes to athletes. Good companies have to have high motivation or goals to achieve. Nike did not care about its profits, and it can strive for what it wants to produce to people.
In conclusion, Nike had a few big problems in 2000, but they overcame the problems by dealing with them quickly, making efforts, and having strong passions. Nike can do many things. The company should be regarded as a reliable company.
References
BBC Sport. (2000, January 8). ‘No Danger’ of toxic traces shirts. BBC News.
Retrieved March 24, 2008, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/593721.stm
Holmes, S. (2006, September 25). Nike Goes For the Green; After 14 years, it
Figures out how to get greenhouse gas out of its sneakers. Business Week. Retrieved March 24, 2008, from Lexis Nexis Database.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
What Nike Inc. Should Do
In BBC Sport’s (2000) article “’No Danger’ from Toxic Shirt Traces” the author states that Nike admitted that a little of a toxic chemical adhered to their shirts. The chemical, TBT, is used to kill bacteria and to prevent the bad smell of sweat. German researchers who examined the shirts announced that it is not dangerous, even for children, because the quantity of the toxic chemical is very small. Nike UK spokeswoman said that the company does not use the toxic chemical when it produces shirts.
Nike Company is a huge successful company in the world. Therefore, they have to take care of their products.
First, they should do checks on their products before shipping. I was disappointed about Nike’s lack of scrutiny. Many people, from adults to children, like Nike’s products. If a small child puts a shirt with a toxic chemical in its mouth, the condition of the child does not always stay the same. Big companies have to have more responsibility for their goods because many people buy their goods. Nike is one of the big companies, so the company has to examine their products a few times to prevent possible incidents.
Next, Nike has to inspect their factories. It is so strange that a toxic chemical was found in shirts; even Nike does not use the chemical. Some companies keep using old factories or old makers. The chemicals were maybe from machines. Therefore, Nike should inspect all of their factories and machines.
Third, Nike had to withdraw the defective goods. Nike announced the chemical is not harmful. However, consumers should not buy the goods because they are not researchers. They cannot judge whether goods are safe or not. Other shits might have more toxics adhered to them. When such accidents happen, Nike should collect their goods.
In conclusion, Nike is a big and rich company, so they should test their goods a few times and examine their machines regularly. Besides, they should collect their goods when incidents have happened. Everyone likes Nike’s products and its goods are not cheap. Therefore, Nike has to prevent incidents and supply safe goods to people.
Reference
BBC News. 'No Danger’ from Toxic Shirt Traces. (2000, January 8). Retrieved April 02, 2008, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/595722.stm
Nike Company is a huge successful company in the world. Therefore, they have to take care of their products.
First, they should do checks on their products before shipping. I was disappointed about Nike’s lack of scrutiny. Many people, from adults to children, like Nike’s products. If a small child puts a shirt with a toxic chemical in its mouth, the condition of the child does not always stay the same. Big companies have to have more responsibility for their goods because many people buy their goods. Nike is one of the big companies, so the company has to examine their products a few times to prevent possible incidents.
Next, Nike has to inspect their factories. It is so strange that a toxic chemical was found in shirts; even Nike does not use the chemical. Some companies keep using old factories or old makers. The chemicals were maybe from machines. Therefore, Nike should inspect all of their factories and machines.
Third, Nike had to withdraw the defective goods. Nike announced the chemical is not harmful. However, consumers should not buy the goods because they are not researchers. They cannot judge whether goods are safe or not. Other shits might have more toxics adhered to them. When such accidents happen, Nike should collect their goods.
In conclusion, Nike is a big and rich company, so they should test their goods a few times and examine their machines regularly. Besides, they should collect their goods when incidents have happened. Everyone likes Nike’s products and its goods are not cheap. Therefore, Nike has to prevent incidents and supply safe goods to people.
Reference
BBC News. 'No Danger’ from Toxic Shirt Traces. (2000, January 8). Retrieved April 02, 2008, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/595722.stm
Monday, March 31, 2008
Nike Inc. has some problems
According to Holmes (2006), Nike tries to be green, but the company has some problems. An environmental magazine complained about Nike Inc. because Nike’s plastic air pockets are used a strong greenhouse gas, SF6. When thousands of air pockets are broken, SF6 is emitted in the air. The company used nitrogen instead of SF6; however, the new air pockets are broken more easily than old ones. After 14 years, Nike eventually completed SF6-free air pockets.
Nike is not a great company for a few reasons. Many people believe Nike is, but it is actually not.
The first problem is their materials. Their shoes are actually nice. They are light and high-end. Everyone likes Nike shoes. If we put on their shoes, it is easy for us to run and comfortable to play basketball. We can even customize our own shoes on Nike’s website. They have many designers, so they can create new hot shoes. On the other hand, the company uses materials that are bad for human bodies. They should consider the problem before they produce shoes.
Next, Nike does not make some efforts to save environment. You can know that if you go to their website. They show a lot of nice shoes, but they do not write anything about the ecology. Nike is one of the top companies in the world. They have a lot of fans and influential. Besides, the company has enough money to care about environment. If they start campaigns for the ecology, many people would participate in it. Therefore, Nike should start producing green shoes, and it should start ecological campaigns.
Third, children were working for long time in developing countries. NGO organizations and some of the U.S. college students sued Nike because children were working at Nike factories in Southeast Asia. The company also has other problems: cheap labor, long working hours and forced labor. Many companies in the world absolutely have same problems. They should have international law to stop the problems.
Reference
Holmes, S. (2006, September 21). Nike Goes For the Green; After 14 years, it figures out how to get greenhouse gas out of its sneakers. Business Week. Retrieved on March 24, 2008, from Lexis Nexis database.
Nike is not a great company for a few reasons. Many people believe Nike is, but it is actually not.
The first problem is their materials. Their shoes are actually nice. They are light and high-end. Everyone likes Nike shoes. If we put on their shoes, it is easy for us to run and comfortable to play basketball. We can even customize our own shoes on Nike’s website. They have many designers, so they can create new hot shoes. On the other hand, the company uses materials that are bad for human bodies. They should consider the problem before they produce shoes.
Next, Nike does not make some efforts to save environment. You can know that if you go to their website. They show a lot of nice shoes, but they do not write anything about the ecology. Nike is one of the top companies in the world. They have a lot of fans and influential. Besides, the company has enough money to care about environment. If they start campaigns for the ecology, many people would participate in it. Therefore, Nike should start producing green shoes, and it should start ecological campaigns.
Third, children were working for long time in developing countries. NGO organizations and some of the U.S. college students sued Nike because children were working at Nike factories in Southeast Asia. The company also has other problems: cheap labor, long working hours and forced labor. Many companies in the world absolutely have same problems. They should have international law to stop the problems.
Reference
Holmes, S. (2006, September 21). Nike Goes For the Green; After 14 years, it figures out how to get greenhouse gas out of its sneakers. Business Week. Retrieved on March 24, 2008, from Lexis Nexis database.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Censorship on the Internet
A UN summit was held in Tunis and people discussed problems on the Internet: the technological gap between poor and rich countries and censorship. Countries which attended the Summit made declarations stating that they would help funding to poor countries. In the Summit, a US delegation was disappointed that Tunisia did not admit freedom. Huang Ju, the Chinese vice premier, stated that China needed to “guarantee freedom of speech” against criminal offenses. Mr. Yoshio Utsumi, secretary general of the Internet Telecommunication Union, said it was necessary to have freedom in cyberspace.
People should build rules or enforce a censorship in cyberspace for several reasons. There are a lot of problems to prevent. People should be able to use the Internet securely.
The first reason we need rules is because we need rules to protect children. While even small children can use the Internet today, they would see unexpected things: sexual or violent things. In fact, some children are interested in sexual or violent things. They are bad education for children. People need rules to save children from unexpected things on the Internet.
Next, we need rules or law to stop criminal acts on the Internet. There are a lot of Internet criminals like hackings or frauds. Many people get in trouble with crimes on the Internet. People try to solve these problems, but the criminal acts get complicated now. If there are rules or law, people can prevent Internet crimes.
Last, our privacy should be protected. On YouTube, people can see almost everything they want. People can see former faces of famous people who had plastic surgeries. On Facebook, people can post any videos. Some people are wounded because of the Internet. Therefore, people need rules or censorship.
As a conclusion, children can see sexual and violent things on the Internet, people meet a lot of Internet crimes, and people are losing privacy. Thus, people should formulate rules to be able to use the Internet safely.
Reference
Twist, J. (2005, November 18). Controversy Blights UN Summit. BBC News. Retrieved on March 20, 2008, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4450474.stm
People should build rules or enforce a censorship in cyberspace for several reasons. There are a lot of problems to prevent. People should be able to use the Internet securely.
The first reason we need rules is because we need rules to protect children. While even small children can use the Internet today, they would see unexpected things: sexual or violent things. In fact, some children are interested in sexual or violent things. They are bad education for children. People need rules to save children from unexpected things on the Internet.
Next, we need rules or law to stop criminal acts on the Internet. There are a lot of Internet criminals like hackings or frauds. Many people get in trouble with crimes on the Internet. People try to solve these problems, but the criminal acts get complicated now. If there are rules or law, people can prevent Internet crimes.
Last, our privacy should be protected. On YouTube, people can see almost everything they want. People can see former faces of famous people who had plastic surgeries. On Facebook, people can post any videos. Some people are wounded because of the Internet. Therefore, people need rules or censorship.
As a conclusion, children can see sexual and violent things on the Internet, people meet a lot of Internet crimes, and people are losing privacy. Thus, people should formulate rules to be able to use the Internet safely.
Reference
Twist, J. (2005, November 18). Controversy Blights UN Summit. BBC News. Retrieved on March 20, 2008, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4450474.stm
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Marriage or Being Single
Some people still have a stereotype that to be a single woman is to be lonely. However, Dubberly states, “being single has plenty of upsides” (para. 9). In recent years, there are many single women. According to the article, more than 30% of adults are single. Compared to lives of married people, single lives are more wonderful for several reasons; financial problem, occupations, and freedom.
The first reason is money. Single women can use their money as they desire. Dubberly expresses, “no one will complain if you spend a fortune on clothes (or tease you if you buy everything from charity shops” (p. 3). Many married couples quarrel or divorce because of money. Therefore, money is one of the big upsides of living alone.
Next, being single is more helpful for single people’s career. The article explains, “employers view single people as more career-oriented and hard working than their married counterparts” (para. 20). Single women can devote more time on their careers because single women are not required to cook for husband and because nobody protests if they come home late at night. Besides, single women will not become pregnant, so they can continue their career longer than married women. Thus, being single plays a role for single people’s occupations.
Third, being single means being free. Dubberly mentions “when you are single, you have the time to follow your own pursuits” (para. 9). Single girls can have time to absorb their hobbies, do not need to cook, and can have casual sex if they want. Single women who do what they want look more attractive than married women who take care of their children. Consequence, being single provides women more chances and time. Single women can anything they want.
Nevertheless, some people think being single has some demerits. The article argues, “there is still a stigma that suggests if a woman does not have a partner, something is missing” (para. 8). However, single women have everything; money, an occupation, and art home, so a partner is not needed. Moreover, single women are tougher than married ones since single women take more responsibility when living alone such as paying bill alone. They can do everything for themselves. For that reason, nothing is missing.
It is clear that being single is wonderful. Single women have enough money to enjoy their lives, job and time to do anything they want, which is what married people do not have. Now, number of single people is more than 30% of adults. The fact means that being single is not outcast but a nice lifestyle.
Reference
Lexis Nexis. (September 28, 2006). Settle Down, Girl-It’s Great to be Single. Retrieved November 8, 2007, from Lexis Nexis datebase.
The first reason is money. Single women can use their money as they desire. Dubberly expresses, “no one will complain if you spend a fortune on clothes (or tease you if you buy everything from charity shops” (p. 3). Many married couples quarrel or divorce because of money. Therefore, money is one of the big upsides of living alone.
Next, being single is more helpful for single people’s career. The article explains, “employers view single people as more career-oriented and hard working than their married counterparts” (para. 20). Single women can devote more time on their careers because single women are not required to cook for husband and because nobody protests if they come home late at night. Besides, single women will not become pregnant, so they can continue their career longer than married women. Thus, being single plays a role for single people’s occupations.
Third, being single means being free. Dubberly mentions “when you are single, you have the time to follow your own pursuits” (para. 9). Single girls can have time to absorb their hobbies, do not need to cook, and can have casual sex if they want. Single women who do what they want look more attractive than married women who take care of their children. Consequence, being single provides women more chances and time. Single women can anything they want.
Nevertheless, some people think being single has some demerits. The article argues, “there is still a stigma that suggests if a woman does not have a partner, something is missing” (para. 8). However, single women have everything; money, an occupation, and art home, so a partner is not needed. Moreover, single women are tougher than married ones since single women take more responsibility when living alone such as paying bill alone. They can do everything for themselves. For that reason, nothing is missing.
It is clear that being single is wonderful. Single women have enough money to enjoy their lives, job and time to do anything they want, which is what married people do not have. Now, number of single people is more than 30% of adults. The fact means that being single is not outcast but a nice lifestyle.
Reference
Lexis Nexis. (September 28, 2006). Settle Down, Girl-It’s Great to be Single. Retrieved November 8, 2007, from Lexis Nexis datebase.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)