As women do not have cultural power, there is no version of hegemonic femininity to rival hegemonic masculinity. There are, however, dominant ideals of doing femininity, which favour White, heterosexual, middle-class cis-women who are able-bodied. Minority women do not enjoy the same social privileges in comparison.
If someone with one lunatic boarding received another see John Jacksonthe house needed a licence. If a licensed house with two insane boarders, lost one, the house would cease to be licensed.
The houses with more than one lunatic needed to be licensed, but the kind of care might not differ from that in a single house. In the nineteenth century and earlier some people provided services relating to this whole range of provision.
For example, a physician see Morison and Seymour for example might visit at home were a person was confined by relatives. The same physician might recommend a paid attendant keeper, nurse who would keep guard over the patient.
Alternatively the physician might recommend someone who would arrange single care in lodgings or might recommend a madhouse. In the case of attendants, single houses and madhouses, there would be a variation of financial arrangements between the physician and the attendants and the house.
Often, the physician would receive a regular retainer for making recommendations. Other words used for paid attendants in the early nineteenth century were keeper and nurse.
Nurse was only used for a female attendant or keeper. It should be noted that there were many non-paupers received at similar charges to paupers, and maintained in similar conditions. Paupers were poor but non-paupers were not necessarily rich! In the midth century all workhouse asylums and most county asylums were exclusively occupied by paupers, although a few county asylums made some provision for others.
Most licensed houses did not take paupers. Only a minority the pauper houses took both or exceptionally only paupers. The pauper houses, however, included the very largest, and as a result over half the lunatics in licensed houses were paupers.
Hospitals received relatively few paupers. Who could be a pauper?
In relation to lunacy or illness the potential for being maintained out of public funds was greater than in relation to straightforward poverty. By section 18 a JP would sign a lunatic as a pauper who was "either in receipt of relief, or in such circumstances as to require relief for his proper care" and "for the purposes of this section" "a person who is visited by a medical officer of the union, at the expense of the union" was counted as in receipt of relief.
The legal process that made someone a chancery lunatic was expensive and generally invoked in connection with the preservation of property.
Single houses were one of the most expensive forms of confinement. Although there is no logical reason why the term single lunatic should not be applied to insane relatives of the poor confined, or just living, at home; in most of the material I have read the text tends to suggest affluence when this term is used.
The Report does speak of paupers being confined in single houses see quote. As the context suggests they are received for a fee, I suspect that some sort of farming out as in Wales is being thought of. Having used the concept of single house broadly, the Report distinguishes the affluent class by calling them private patients.
Single lunatics were those confined in premises where no other lunatic was kept at the same time. Single houses did not require a licence references Until the admission of a single lunatic did not require a certificateand no returns were made to the Physician Commission.
Certificates were required frombut not, however, for confinement with the relative or the committee of a chancery lunatic where no profit was made.
The Madhouses Act also required notification of lunatics received into single housesbut until these returns were not sent to the commission as a whole and were confidential from the major part of the commission.
They were therefore called the Private Return and the register they were entered in the Private Register Seeand Theoretically the commissioners could have visited a single lunatic after by obtaining the authority of the Lord Chancellor or Home Secretary 3S.At some point in their exploration of Brazil, the Portuguese encountered an animal they called bicho-preguiça (lazy animal or animal sloth).
(Portugese Wikipedia).The French called it Paresseux and the Spanish Perezosos or Pereza (lazy). The English called it a Sloth. Childhood and Socialisation in Australia. Topics: Sociology Socialisation Essay Jarvis () defines socialisation as ‘the process whereby people acquire the rules of behaviour and the systems of beliefs and attitudes that form part of life in their society’.
Childhood and Socialisation in Australia This Essay Childhood and Socialisation in Australia and other 64,+ term papers, college essay examples and free essays are available now on ph-vs.com Autor: review • December 7, • Essay • Words (3 Pages) • Views.
The sociology of childhood, and of the family for that matter, is often conceived in very individualistic psychological terms.
It looks more closely at why an individual learns to conform to be part of society and its norms than it does at the social structures which produce a certain approach to the status of childhood or the institution of the family.
cycle held in new york may 17 19 the socialisation of society essay sample socialization after childhood two essays new york wiley p 3 after the first two weeks volunteering download childhood childhood and socialisation in australia essay socialization does not end after childhood.
Mental Health and Learning Disability Home Page Other word lists Mental Health History Words The index on the left has yellow entries for items on this page and white for entries on other pages.