What Is Meant by Employer Militancy Essay Example

What Is Meant by Employer Militancy? Essay MGTS2607 Essay What is meant by employer militancy? How have employer actions towards trade unions changed since the end of the 1980’s? Why have Australian employers undertaken this change of approach? Student: Samantha Freeman Student Number: 41022715 Tutor: Dr Tom Bramble Due Date: 16th September 2008 WORD COUNT: 1,900 This essay will answer the three essay questions put forward. Firstly, it will briefly explain what is meant by employer militancy. It will outline the main features of the aggressive approach adopted by employers in their relations with trade unions since the 1980’s. Secondly, this essay will describe the changes in employer actions towards unions. It will outline the different phases that have occurred during the change as well as discussing trends which illustrate the growing tendency of employers to either confront or avoid dealing with unions or circumvent dealing with them completely. Lastly, this essay will put forth reasons as to why Australian employers have undertaken this change of approach. It will outline multiple factors, such as economical, political and changes in legislation that will help to explain this change in approach. This essay will also incorporate the decline in trade union coverage as both a result and a cause of this change in approach. Since the 1980s, Australian employers have become increasingly hostile towards trade unions over and due their perceived excessive involvement in bargaining for employment conditions, arbitration and disputes. We will write a custom essay sample on What Is Meant by Employer Militancy? specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on What Is Meant by Employer Militancy? specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on What Is Meant by Employer Militancy? specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer This has created the phenomenon that’s been termed employer militancy. Alexander et al. (2008:97) define employer militancy as ‘willingness of employers to use legal action to secure punitive damages against a trade union’. It is an aggressive anti-union approach, in which employers actively seeking ways to marginalise trade unions, with the help of their employer organisation. There are several main features of a militant employer, behavours such as offensive lockout (Briggs, 2004:110) aims to reduce the bargaining power of the unions. Most of the heaviset impacting changes to the industrial relations system began to manifest in the late 1980’s. The process started with the ‘managed de-centralisation’ of the ‘second tier system’, where for the first time, representation for employees in regards to their wages and conditions of employment were able to be negotiated directly by employers and their associations and unions (McDonald and Rimmer, 1989 as cited by Cooper, 2005: 159). Prior to the 1990s, awards were a central and distinguishing feature of labour regulation in Australia (Bray et al, 2006:45). Awards were technically a form of state regulation which was determined by the decision of a third-party arbitrator appointed by the government (the Australian Industrial Relations Commission) in resolving disputes between registered organizations. As Bray and Waring (2006) explain, awards were in a realistic sense, the result of a complex structure of joint decision-making in which employees, their unions, employers, their employers associations, governments and tribunals contributed to the regulation of employment conditions – primarily wages and wage rates. The failure of the Second Tier to moderate macroeconomic pressures in combination with the rising pressure from business groups such as the Business Council of Australia encouraged parties within the system to develop new procedures. The most significant among the new procedures was the possibility of a more decentralised system (Wooden and Sloan, 1998:178) which provided greater opportunities for employers and workers to negotiate directly over wages at the enterprise and workplace level, without the unions. The AIRC was unhappy with the new collective bargaining principle, and worked hard to obstruct the implementation of it. It was through these actions that the changes in the Industrial Relations Act 1988 were first made. These amendments reduced the ability of the Commission to become involved in the enterprise bargaining process, and inevitably lead to the passing of the Industrial Relations Reform Act in 1993. These ammendents included, among other things, the introduction of a non-union/collective bargaining system in the form of Enterprise Flexibility Agreements. The intention of the 1993 Industrial Relations Reform Act, for example, was to make enterprise bargaining the main process for determining wages and other onditions of employment. Awards continued to provide effective regulation for employees who were not enjoying the benefits of enterprise bargaining, even if award wages rose slowly and fell well behind wage increases in enterprise agreements (Bray etc al, 2006). The Business Council of Australia’s strong support for enterprise bargaining and for a weakened role for arbitration tri bunals gradually became the mainstream position among most Australian employers, even among those who had previously supported centralized bargaining (Thornthwaite and Sheldon, 1996). This was the first time in history, in which the unions were excluded from having any involvement in all forms of agreement in relations to employment conditions in the federal jurisdiction. It was at the time of this introduction that it became evident that these agreements would allow employers to begin to de-unionise their operations and to accelerate their move towards a non-union status. The most radical industrial relations reforms of the past 20 or so years was brought in soon after the election of the Howard government in 1996. Whilst speaking at a Young Liberals’ Conference he alluded to his goal of de-centralising Australian employment relations. ‘The goals of meaningful reforms, more jobs and better, higher wages, cannot be achieved unless the union monopoly over the bargaining processes in our industrial relations system is dismantled’ (Howard 1996, quoted in van Barneveld Nassif, 2003). Not long after this, the Howard government was elected into power. Soon after the government was brought into position, The Workplace Relations Act 1996 was introduced. This Act cut back the content of awards significantly. This ended up forcing the unions to go about trying to protect workers’ entitlements by attempting to push award stipulations into enterprise agreements. (Cooper, 2005: 160). The act drastically cut short the ability of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) to intervene in industrial disputes and introduced rather heavy fines for unions attempting ‘unprotected’ action, such as strikes. The Act also introduced individual Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs) which excluded unions. Cooper, 2005: 160) With the implementation of the new Workplace Relations Act 1996, Australian unions lost their monopoly bargaining rights (Bray and Walsh, 1998: 373). This, among other changes in the Act made it a lot more difficult for the unions to access or to represent workers, but it made it easier for employers to choose whether, and to what extent, they would negotiate and bargain with collective representati ves of their employees. Along with changes to industrial legislation, unions have also had their right to access workplaces, members and non-members restricted. Since 1996 union officials have had right of access only when they had union members at a site and then only when they gave employers notice of their intention to visit. As outlined by Wooden and Sloan (1998), the number of registered agreements has continued to increase since 1991 when formalised collective agreements first became possible. Between October 1991 and October 1997, approximately 15,000 federal agreements had been formalised by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, with the number of employees estimated to be covered by these agreements reaching 1. 4 million by late 1996, or 64 per cent of employees within the coverage of the federal awards system. In 2004 the Howard government won an increased majority in the House of Representatives as well as complete control in the Senate. Not long afterwards, the WorkChoices bill was passed. This new act further reduced the power of the AIRC as well as diluting the standards against which workplace agreements were to be c ompared to before becoming into effect. It also assisted in the creation of individual employee contracts and abolished the unfair dismissal protection for any business that had less than 100 employees working for them. WorkChoices restricted unions’ ability to take industrial action as well as being able to enforce collective bargaining. It also made organising any non-union worksites significantly more difficult than in had been in previous years. When WorkChoices was implemented, the process for unions in taking legal industrial action became difficult, costly and had the potential of making both unions and their members susceptible to significant fines and tort damages. In contrast, due to WorkChoices, employer access to protected lock-outs is almost unlimited. Under WorkChoices there was no requirement for employers to take any steps at all to negotiate with a union, regardless of the percentage of their employees who were either union members, or had expressed their wish to enter into a union collective agreement with their employer. This new legislation gave employers the ability to marginalise unions, avoid unionisation as well as basically having the ability to circumvent the unions completely. Changes in legislation, a growing aversion toward unions from the both the previous, and the newly elected governments, as well as the growing managerial prerogative have made it difficult for the unions to now try to organise workers, to bargain o behalf of or be able to ‘effectively’ represent workers. The changes to rights of access and the different legislative changes as well as employers’ increasing willingness to enforce the legislative provisions have led a shift in the balance of power between unions, and employers, where employers are no significantly stronger than the unions. This essay has explained what is meant by employer militancy, and outlined the main features of the approach adopted by employers since the 1980’s. It has also outlined how employer actions have changed over the last 30 or so years. It has also explained the different factors that have contributed to this change in employer strategy overall when dealing with the unions. ? Reference List Alexander, R. , Lewer, J. , and Gahan, P. 2008. Understanding Australian Industrial Relations. South Melbourne: Thompson. Australian Government. 2005. WorkChoices: A simpler, fairer, national workplace relations system for Australia. Commonwealth of Australia. Parliament House. Canberra Bramble, T. 2008a. MGTS2607 Lecture 4, 14th August 2008. Bramble, T. 2008a. MGTS2607 Lecture 5, 14th August 2008. Briggs, C. 2004. The Return of the Lockout in Australia: a Profile of Lockouts since the Decentralisation of Bargaining. Australian Bulletin of Labour, 30 (2): 101 Briggs, C. , and Cooper, R. 2006. Between Individualism and Collectivism? Why employers choose non-union collective agreements. Labour and Industry, 17 (2): 1-24 Bray, M. , and Walsh, P. 1998. Different paths to neo-liberalism? Comparing Australia and New Zealand. Industrial Relations. 37 (3): 358-388 Bray, M. , and Waring, P. 2006. The Rise of Managerial Prerogative under the Howard Government. Australian Bulletin of Labour, 32 (1): 45-62 Cooper, R. 2005. Australian unionism in a de-collectivised environment. University of Sydney Paper Lansbury, R. D. , Wailes, N. , and Yabeck, C. 2007. Different Paths to Similar Outcomes? Industrial Relations Reform and Public Policy in Australia and New Zealand. Jounal of Labour Research. 28 (4): 629 Thornthwaite, L. , Sheldon, L. , and Sheldon, P. 1999. Employer associations and industrial relations change: Catalysts Or Captives? Allen Unwin. Van Barneveld, K and Nassif, R. 2003. Motivations for the Introduction of Workplace Agreements. Labour and Industry, 14 (2): 21-38. Wooden, M and Sloan, J. 1998. Industrial relations reform and labour market outcomes: a comparison of Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom in G. Debelle and J. Borland (eds. ), Unemployment and the Australian Labour Market: 169–203. Sydney: Economic Group, Reserve Bank of Australia and Centre for Economic Policy Research, Australian National University,

Should I Drop Off My Resume In Person

Should I Drop Off My Resume In Person You see a job advertisement online, and it suits you to a T. You could do the job with one hand tied behind your back, you’d enjoy the work, and it’s at a company you’ve always admired. And, as it turns out, the company is located just down the street from you. Although the post directs you to upload your resume, why not take a trip over to the company’s office, ask for the corporate recruiter, and hand them the resume?It’d be great! Why wouldn’t they want to meet you? You’d be a perfect fit for the job, and they’d know- on the spot, no less!- that they could end the search right here and now!Unfortunately, things are a bit more complicated. Showing up unannounced with your resume could cause you more harm than help.In the days before everybody had email and the internet (think: the 1990s), if you were interested in a job you saw in the newspaper (!) you’d print up a resume and a cover letter on nice stationery and drop i t in the mail. That meant that from the day a job was posted to receiving the first resume, it was usually a few days before a recruiter would get anything in the mail. So, if you showed up with a resume the day a job opening was published in the paper, there was the possibility the recruiter and the hiring manager were itching to get the job filled. It showed that you were a motivated job seeker with spunk.In fact, this was how my wife snagged her first job when we moved to Miami. An editor and a journalist, she ran in to drop off a resume to a magazine publisher that was preparing to open up a new editor’s job. She gave them the resume, they handed it to the publisher, and within a few days she had an interview and then a job offer. She spent the next nine years at that magazine.It doesn’t work that way anymore. Generally speaking, it is now not considered a welcome gesture for a job seeker to drop off a resume at an employer for a professional-level role.Whatâ€℠¢s changed? Basically, the entire recruitment and hiring process. This shift was enabled by two factors:First, email. This change allowed job seekers to send a resume to somebody at a company instantaneously. The person receiving the email could check out the applications at their convenience, but still much more quickly than a resume sent by traditional mail.Second, online job applications. This started with job boards like TheJobNetwork or LinkedIn, but grew into several other job portals. Then applicant tracking systems (ATS’s) came along. These are software applications recruiters use to collect, sort, and process resumes; once these systems were implemented, they also enabled companies to build out their own job pages on their websites, where they could collect resumes directly through their system.As these systems arose, many companies got rid of â€Å"employment centers† where they would take walk-in applications of job seekers. Some companies still operate walk -in employment centers, but they’re primarily directed at finding manual or hourly labor, where job seekers wouldn’t traditionally have a resume they could email (if the employer does run one of these, by all means feel free to stop by).Here are of the main three reasons why it’s a bad idea for a job seeker to drop off a resume:The recruiter’s job is now database and systems driven. They’re managing massive amounts of data- it’s not unusual for a recruiter to collect thousands of resumes through their ATS, which assists them in prioritizing job seekers based upon fit. Since the process is all digital, presenting a paper resume (without uploading it into the system first) is presents an inconvenience that needs to be scanned, entered, and prioritized.It’s an interruption for the recruiter. A recruiter’s day is typically filled with candidate sourcing activities, phone screens, in-person interviews, meetings with hiring managers, strategic projects, and other activities. In other words, they’re really, really busy. And here’s the conundrum; companies and recruiters are very sensitive to the customer experience for job applicants. They want the employer to be perceived as an employer of choice, and so while it may disrupt the recruiter’s day to drop what they are doing and meet candidates who show up unannounced, they may still greet them in order to provide a positive experience so no one feels snubbed by the company. But, the recruiter may actually resent it, hurting your chances in the long run.Showing up is outside the process the company asked you to follow. Employers like to hire people who demonstrate a propensity for following directions. It’s highly likely the employer asked job seekers to apply online; conversely, it’s highly unlikely they asked job seekers to show up unannounced. It’s a strike against your ability to follow directions from Day 1.What shoul d you do if you feel you’re the perfect candidate and you want to make a positive impression and stand out?Apply online first- promptly. Yes, it’s a pain, but go online to the company’s website, upload your resume, fill out those boxes, and respond however the online job ad requires. Doing as you’re asked shows you respect the company’s processes- and their employees’ time. Besides, the company representatives will likely send you back to this step at some point anyway, so why not get ahead of it?Reach out to an appropriate contact online. There is nothing wrong with finding the recruiter or hiring manager and sending them a brief note via email or through LinkedIn. A well-placed, well-timed note (indicating that you’ve already applied online, of course) can often elicit a positive response from the recipient if you’re a good fit. And they can review it and respond to it on their own time, rather than when you show up.Leverage your network. Do you know somebody who works at the company? Ask them to put in a good word and route your resume on your behalf. They may have the inside track on the opportunity, and a respected referral source is usually held in high regard by a human resources department.One more thing: Should you feel vitally compelled to drop off a resume at that company, just leave it with the front desk. Don’t ask for the recruiter to come out and meet you. They’ll get the resume anyway- the receptionist will give it to them.Scott Singer is the President and Founder of Insider Career Strategies LLC, a firm dedicated to guiding job seekers and companies through the job search and hiring process.  He is a Human Resources professional and staffing expert with almost two decades of in-house corporate HR and staffing firm experience, and is a Certified Professional Resume Writer (CPRW) and Certified Professional Career Coach (CPCC).Insider Career Strategies offers a free resume re view. You can email Scott at scott.singer@insidercs.com, or via the website, www.insidercs.com.

Common Ground in Rhetoric - Definition and Examples

Common Ground in Rhetoric s In rhetoric and communication, common ground is a basis of mutual interest or agreement thats found or established in the course of an argument. Finding common ground is an essential aspect of conflict resolution and a key to ending disputes peacefully. Examples and Observations Whereas ancient rhetoricians seemed confident that they shared common ground with their audiences, modern rhetorical writers must often discover common ground. . . . In our pluralistic world where we often do not share values, readers and authors work to find the common ground that allows them to communicate and interpret judgments, evaluations, and emotions.(Wendy Olmsted, Rhetoric: An Historical Introduction. Blackwell, 2006)Buried deep within the heart of every conflict lies a territory known as Common Ground. But how do we summon the courage to seek out its borders?(The Control Voice in Tribunal. The Outer Limits, 1999)Only in a situation of actual revolution . . . could one say that there is no common ground among participants in a controversy.(David Zarefsky, A Skeptical View of Movement Studies. Central States Speech Journal, Winter 1980)The Rhetorical SituationOne possibility for defining common ground . . . is a shift from that which is already shared, to that which is not s haredbut which could potentially become shared, or if not shared then at least understood, once we open up the paradigm to include that act of listening to each other as part of the common ground of rhetorical exchange. . . .Common ground presumes that, no matter what our individual positions, we do share a common interest in both individual and social growth, a willingness to enter into the rhetorical situation with an open mind, to consider, to hear, to ask questions, to make contributions. It is out of such commonalities that we forge new competencies, new understandings, new identities . . ..(Barbara A. Emmel, Common Ground and (Re)Defanging the Antagonistic, in Dialogue and Rhetoric, ed. by Edda Weigand. John Benjamins, 2008) Common Ground in Classical Rhetoric: Shared OpinionPerhaps the least equivocal vision of  common ground is  found in  rhetorical  theories- which stress stylistic appropriateness and audience-adaptation. In antiquity, rhetorics were often handbooks of commonplaces- common topics appropriate for general audiences. The idea was that it takes agreement to get agreement. Aristotle thus saw common ground as shared opinion, the underlying unity that makes enthymemes possible. Enthymemes are rhetorical syllogisms trading on the listeners ability to supply premises to a speakers claims. The common ground between speaker and listener is a cognitive unity: The said calls up the unsaid, and together the speaker and listener create a common syllogism.(Charles Arthur Willard,  Liberalism and the Problem of Knowledge: A New Rhetoric for Modern Democracy. The University of Chicago Press, 1996)The New Rhetoric of Chaim PerelmanIt sometimes seems as if two opposing views are so different th at no common ground can be found. Strangely enough, exactly when two groups hold radically opposing views, common ground is likely to exist. When two political parties strongly advocate different economic policies, we may assume that both parties are deeply concerned about the economic welfare of the country. When the prosecution and the defense in a legal case differ fundamentally on the matter of guilt or innocence, one can start by saying that both wish to see justice done. Of course, fanatics and skeptics will seldom be persuaded of anything.(Douglas Lawrie, Speaking to Good Effect: An introduction to the Theory and Practice of Rhetoric. SUN PReSS, 2005) Kenneth Burkes Concept of IdentificationWhen rhetoric and composition scholarship invokes identification, it most commonly cites Kenneth Burkes modern theory of consubstantial common ground. As a place for rhetorical listening, however, Burkes concept of identification is limited. It does not adequately address the coercive force of common ground that often haunts cross-cultural communication, nor does it adequately address how to identify and negotiate troubled identifications; moreover, it does not address how to identify and negotiate conscious identifications functioning as ethical and political choices.(Krista Ratcliffe, Rhetorical Listening: Identification, Gender, Whiteness. SIU Press, 2005)

Separation of Ownership and control, and agency costs Essay

Separation of Ownership and control, and agency costs - Essay Example The agreement structures together with the present production technologies and the outward lawful constraints to ascertain the cost function for conveying an output with a specific type of organization. The type of organization that survives is the one that conveys the output as per the customers’ demand at a cheaper price (Fama and Jensen, 1983, p. 302). The main agreements in any business organization outline two key things. These are the form of the lasting claims and the breakdown of the decision-making procedure that affects representatives. These are the agreements that make organizations be unique from one another and illustrate the reason behind the survival of various kinds of organizations. While concentrating on entrepreneurial organizations that require the entrepreneur to make all decisions, economists often disregard the analysis of the decision-making procedure. ... There is an emphasis on the factors that give survival value to organizational types that separate ownership and control. Residual Claims Most types of business organizations resort to agreement structures that reduce risks undertaken by representatives. This is achieved by introducing either fixed terms of remuneration or those that are pegged on performance. In addition, the agreements of most representatives comprise an implied or unequivocal provision that in exchange for the particular payoffs, the representative affirms that through the resources he accords, the interests of the residual claimants are met. Residual claimants emanate from one of the agent teams and it is likely to survive due to two reasons. First, it minimizes the expenses incurred while supervising the agreements made with other groups of representatives. Secondly, it minimizes those costs used to modify agreements for the dynamic risks encountered by other agent groups. The survival value of organizations is further enhanced by the agreements that express decisions towards the interests of lasting claimants. Different organizational forms have residual claims with varying controls. For instance, common stocks in large organizations are the least controlled lasting claims in regular use. Stockholders have provisions that do not require them to have any other duty in the organization, and their lasting claims are separate without limits. Such provisions enable stockholders to have unlimited risk sharing. These large scale organizations with such properties are referred to us open organizations. They are different from closed organizations which are not only smaller but also have lasting claims that are greatly restricted to

How Facebook Has Destroyed Privacy Boundaries Essay

How Facebook Has Destroyed Privacy Boundaries - Essay Example The website has come under the limelight time and again. Previously it was in the limelight as a business model for innovation and hallmark breakthroughs but in recent times it has been scrutinized for breaches of privacy. The various forms of breach of privacy have been recognized and investigated and are confirmed phenomenon leaving little to doubt them anymore (Iachello and Hong). Some breaches of privacy are caused due to users overlooking fine print details while other breaches of privacy occur due to online surveillance. In addition to everything else, certain forms of breach of privacy occur due to the inherent design of social networking platforms. This paper will focus on the various forms of breach of privacy that have resulted from the use of Facebook whether these breaches were intentional or otherwise. Furthermore, the consequences of these breaches will be looked into in detail to gauge their effects on ordinary people. Another major factor that limits the amount of inf ormation carried by human beings is the limit on information delivered at any one point in time through conversations. It would be unrealistic to assume that a person could convey all kinds of personal and family information to another in one meeting alone. However, this situation is totally reversed when using computing platforms to interact. People who use social networking websites such as Facebook will realize that a large amount of information has to be divulged in order to sign up for such services.  

The Subtleties of Men and Women :: essays research papers

There are many things to be said about men and women. No one can pretend they know everything about the two. A vast majority of people want to study the relationship between men and their counterparts. One could say that it is made too complicated when it starts when it starts getting into the psychoanalytical studies. Men are put out there as more dominant leaders, and women and women start to feel like they have something to prove to society by proving they too can do just as well. Being that by nature human beings are subject to their own greed, thus women will go to great lengths to prove they can do as men do. The Civil Rights Act was extended towards women too. As a result of that it opened the door for women for women to participate in more things only men were allowed. Some men and women do not even get along. Perhaps to see and understand, certain differences should be looked at such as interest, hobbies, and habits. If the interests are looked at one would see they are clearly not the same. A typical male will have a favorite sports team in which he watches every game. There are many other interests like hunting, fishing, and just about any outdoor activity. A weekend well planned would consist of camping, fishing, and a nice fire at the end of the day. Generally, women would rather not watch football or basketball games. They would rather go to the mall and see what sales are going on. However there are some girls who would rather get dirty with the boys, as opposed to doing hair or having a sleepover. Men and women also have different hobbies. A man will get real involved with his car. He will want to modify the engine to make it faster. It is in a way competitive to do it on one’s own. Coming from man’s nature it is an exhilarating feeling to brag about what he has done with it. Also a man likes to brag about the deer he shot or the fish he caught. On the other side of the road man’s counterpart typically likes to plant flowers or do some sort of crafts. They would rather stay cleaner and engage in something that will not get them greasy. Maybe it is due to women having more patience or just that men do not see that as very masculine.

Dracula Queer Theory

The existence of alien and intolerable behavior generates fear into society’s mentality of the expected conduct. But does the ‘queer’ lurk under the bed? Or is it a part of all of us? The classic text â€Å"Dracula†, written by Bram Stoker, is valuable in understanding the course of society in its exploration of tabooed acts and mentalities, supported by the â€Å"Queer Theory† prevalent in the mid 1900’s. Although the queer theory describes the author’s subconscious drive for homosexual and feministic expression, Stoker’s stand point, however, is to highlight society’s vulnerability caused by their oppression of individuality and lack of conformity. Through this text we have been able to understand the flaws in a conformist society where individuality and the â€Å"different† are oppressed. Each community has their own particular morals and ethics, and when the actions of the different penetrates and ‘influences’ these expectations, those in power result to force in order to restore the original values that were compromised. Stoker’s warning of the supernatural feared the people of his century, anyone who appeared or acted ‘differently’ to what was expected, as represented through the characters in Dracula. It has been rumored that Dracula extends the element of the â€Å"Queer Theory† to a whole distinct level. Through analysis of Dracula’s behaviors, it is questioned whether or not Dracula indeed was queer himself. Besides the supernatural and gothic abilities that he encompassed, Dracula showed evidence of homosexuality. When the Count saw my face, his eyes blazed in some sort of demonic fury† (Page 33), is evident of the desire for blood, which according to the ‘Queer Theory’ symbolizes his confused sexual desire for men. Dracula thus represents the disturbance in masculinity, as he enters his femininity; a further demonstration of the 1900’s ‘Queer Theory. ’ Therefore it can be argued that Dracula is valued by the social outcas ts of modern society as it gives hope to those who choose the express their individuality. Unusual behaviors are often intolerably indicated within a society that has strict expectations and values. Stoker’s upbringing revolved around women who were independent in their own ways, however societies expectations disallowed this aspect of humanity as men where thought to be the masculine and dominant figure. The queer theory suggests that Bram Stoker concealed his â€Å"mismatch of gender roles, sex and desires† (Judith Butler, 1994) due to the clashes of his personal upbringing with society’s expectations. Women being the submissive and weak figures reflected through the words of Stoker as he portrayed this bewilderedness through Dracula who himself becomes weak at any sense of unassertive or dominant sex. Dracula’s confusion is evident as he seduces the ‘devoted’ Lucy where he demonstrates the authoritative paternal figure yet. However, when he portrays his desire and possession of Jonathan, claiming â€Å"he belongs to [him]† (Page 46), he symbolizes the feminine teenage girl who has a fascination with the opposite sex.