Should controversial speakers (on whatever subject) be allowed on college campuses?

I think that college is a place that we go to continue our education, but is also a place where we are presented with controversial topics and issues. If we do not get this exposure, I feel we are doing ourselves a diservice because to shelter ourselves from such matters would be naiive and sheltering. No matter what your cultural or religious beleifs are, being presented with controversial issues, material, or topics will only help you to firm your belief systems, but will also open up a window for you to see into another perspective or point of view. I think it is very important for controversial speakers to be allowed onto college campuses because it gets the students expoesed to what they are going to hear out in the real world. Exposure of any kind is only going to help build us as individuals and diversify the ways in which we think.   

To what extent should advertising aimed at children be regulated by law?

Think back on your day, how many bill boards did you pass on your way home or to work? Did you watch TV? Did you listen to the radio? Or did you read the newspaper or any magazines? All of these examples are sources of advertisements, and usually meet the eye at least one individual that either sees, hears, or reads about them. The most easily impacted of those that witness any of these advertisements would be children. Children are not as conditioned to advertisements as young adolescents, or adults, so they are more tempted to fall for them. The next time you go to the grocery store take a walk down the cereal isle a look where all the sugar filled, fun colored, cereals are located. In all grocery stores these cereals will be on the bottom 3-5 shelves right at eye level with the children.

The children usually recognize the characters that help represent these particular cereals: the rabbit from Trix cereal, the rooster from cocoa puff's cereal, or the leprechaun from the lucky charms cereal. Now think about where these children would have viewed the advertisements for these cereals...TV, and if you monitor it you will find that these commercials are usually on in the mornings, the primary time when children will be viewing. The children grow interest in the cereals through the characters that represent them which leads them to wanting those particular cereals. The same goes for fast food, and the easy example: Ronald McDonald.

He is used to lure children in to wanting to eat at McDonald's. I think that advertisers choose to appeal to children because they are easy targets and are easily influenced, and for the most part, their parents will buy them whatever they want so they will stop crying or throwing a fit. I would like to see this be regulated, but I don't know if it ever will because children make the big corporations too much money. One other solution to this problem would be teaching the parents better ways to control their child's urges, like the NEED for the particular kind of cereal, but thats a whole new discussion topic.

What types of regulations of smoking in public places should the legal system impose?

I believe that smoking, although it is a personal freedom, should be regulated to only being allowed outdoors. Second hand smoke does exist and does have harmful effects on the individuals exposed to it.

Individuals who smoke do not bother me, and I think that smoking is actually a great way for some people to net work with people, and get to know strangers. I would have a problem with smokers if I did not have the option of being separated from them and their toxic smoke producing cancer sticks. As long as I can escape it, I'm alright with it.

As far as other restrictions on smoking, I think that throwing out your cigarette buts should be considered littering and should result in a fine, because it is the same thing as the person who throws out a can of soda, size should not matter in this case...  

Do certain children's toys create social or emotional or other problems?

I think that certain children's toys do have negative emotional, social, and psychological effects on children.  Take Barbie for example, Barbie is promoted towards young girls, of which have interest, and acts like a role model to all women. Barbie is an extremely skinny, tall, large chested woman, than can impact a child in the wrong ways. If Barbie were to represent an actual human being, she would be 9 feet tall, with a waist of somewhere around 7-10 inches.

This can have quite harmful effects on young girls that do not fit the "Barbie" image. Another example would be that of GI Joe, who has progressed in size (muscles) quite drastically in the last 10-15 years. First of all, these toys portray to a child how they should look and act, which is on a large scale, VERY unrealistic.

This can lead to children becoming self conscious of their bodies, which can lead to self disgust or shame. These toys can also bring harm to children as it leads them to believe that must fit the gender stereotypes displayed through advertising, toys, and especially TV. This can lead to complicated thoughts for individuals who do not fit the gender norms, and do not relate to the sexuality norms. Now this may not be until later in life, but this all plays off on the preconditioning by the media, through toys, and expectations of parents.

What impact on the family (or the workplace) have changes in gender roles had?

In the last 50-60 years the gender roles in The U.S have gone through a huge transition. Now days there are more women in the work force competing for the jobs that were once only limited to working men. Men are now becoming stay at home parents taking care of the children while the mother will go out and pursue her college degree, and move onto her career. Both men and women are putting more concern on the household income, rather than on raising their children and spending time with.

Due to the increase in both parents having a daytime or nighttime job children are now being enrolled in daycare centers where they will spend the majority of their day, away from their parents. I find that all of these changes have had both positive and negative effects on the family as a whole. For one, the children are getting effected because they are now spending less time with their parents, and for two, the parents relationship is getting stressed because now both members of the household must hold a job to make ends meet. Positives that have come from the shift in gender roles would be the fact that more women have the opportunity to pursue a college degree, and then a professional career, and that women are also able to reach very high positions in their filed of choice.

Positives for men would have to be the fact that more men are getting acclimated with the kitchen the taking care of the household, as well as getting more in touch with their children and building stronger relationships. I find the gender role shift to stand out with more positives than negatives.

Should children be required to attend school past the age of sixteen?

As we all might be able to attest, education is becoming increasingly important, and is often required in most, if not all job fields. No longer are the days where a person can only have a 8th grade education, or less, and still be competitive in the job market. Now that most of our jobs are being shipped out across sea's, it limits what jobs are left, and the jobs that are left, are being competed upon by many, (highly) qualified individuals. In my opinion, a person would be simply fooling themselves if they did not get a high school diploma, and more so now, a 2-4 year college degree.

I have an aunt who only has a 2 year degree in business, and she is competing with others, who are half her age, that have a 4 year degree, a masters, or a Doctorate degree. Education is important, and although it is expensive, it will certainly pay off well in the end.

Dont be a fool, STAY IN SCHOOL!!!! :0)

Where and how, if at all, should sex education be conducted?

I order to express my opinion, let me tell you what sexual education I received through my schooling experience. The first time sexual education was conducted was when I was in 6th grade, when I would have been around the age of 12 or 13. I was in a Private Catholic School for my 6th grade year, so you can imagine how limited the education was, as the Bible preaches abstinence, and not having sex before marriage. The next time I was exposed to sexual education was not until my 8th grade year in the public school.

Here, we got more in depth on the topics, and the topic of safe sex was spoken of with more clarity.  Then it was 10th grade health class where we learned how to have safe sex, so to prevent any STI's, and of course abstinence was the only option that would protect you 100%  from getting pregnant or receiving STI's. This shows that I received, with all the different years of education, approximately 3/4 to 1 year of sexual education. In my opinion, this is FAR too little exposure to sex ed. As statistics show, teenagers are contacting STI's, and getting pregnant at increasingly younger ages. I currently have 6 classmates, that have, or will soon have their first child, and their all under the age of 21!!!

This is quite alarming to me. SO, to get back to the focus of this discussion topic, I believe we as students, should begin receiving sexual education as early as 4th or 5th grade, and should continue to receive it throughout the rest of our middle school and high school years, if not every year, every other, or every couple of years. Sex is something that is natural. It is something that we cannot, due to our nature, help but to be curious about, or to crave, and depend on. I think it would be naive to think that children are not experimenting at younger, and younger ages. I also think that instead of placing so much attention on abstinence, which I DO still agree with, we must talk more in depth about safe sex, because honestly, kids, teenagers, adults, we ALL are curious, and end up experimenting at one time or another..