no image
The topic of interest for today is the crucial role of socioeconomic status (SES) in the development of obesity. Recent years have witnessed dramatic escalations in the prevalence of obesity, particularly in countries such as New Zealand and Australia. There is a wealth of literature documenting the various causes of obesity. Nonetheless, it is worth of note that the approach to obesity has frequently been general across the board. With a narrow focus, this critical review will explore one of the rarely studied connections between SES and obesity. To achieve this objective, five peer-reviewed articles were selected and examined to establish the crucial role of SES in the development of obesity. Three quantitative and two qualitative research articles were considered in the review of the literature. All the research articles, irrespective of the research approach, focused on the relationship between SES and the prevalence of obesity in New Zealand. Firstly, the review will take a general point of view by defining obesity and the SES before narrowing down to the connection between them.
Virtually all research articles selected agree that obesity is a health condition in which the body has accumulated excess body fat, which is harmful. Nonetheless, a perfect definition that seems to have attracted no criticism is one offered by Gearhart Jr, Gruber, & Vanata (2008): “…. in that intake of calories is greater than caloric expenditure.” In essence, this definition rules out the consideration of fats as the main cause of obesity. It is worth including the term calories in the definition as it emphasizes the biological cause of obesity. For this reason, the review will regard Gearhart Jr, Gruber, & Vanata (2008)definition of obesity as the most valid one now.
​Studies focusing on obesity can be classified into two important groups. Those examining childhood obesity and those targeting adulthood obesity. However, there is an intermediate category of studies examining the link between adulthood and childhood obesity. In such studies, childhood obesity is regarded as a causative of the adulthood overweight. One such study was conducted by Venn, et al. (2007), who followed up participants from childhood to adulthood in Australian schools. Venn, et al. (2007) pursued a quantitative approach in studying the link between childhood obesity and adulthood overweight. The height and weight of the participants were measured, and self-reported at follow-up. The validity of the self-reported data was checked in the participants. To avoid biases, the research used the international standard definitions of BMI. The strength of this study resides in its sample size, national sampling as well as the quality of height and weight measurement at baseline. However, the drawbacks reside in the lack of objectivity because the subjects were supposed to self-report their height. Further, with little focus on the influence of socio-economic factors on the transition of childhood obesity to adulthood overweight, it is imperative to look at the issue from a new angle (Venn, et al., 2007). It is arguable that changes take place in the SES of individuals as they transition from children to adults. Based on these studies, there are two categories of obesity (childhood and adulthood). Nonetheless, it is worth noting that most research consider the causes of both childhood and adulthood obesity to be the same. Consequently, the role played by SES is arguably the same in both childhood and adulthood obesity. Two of the selected articles concentrated on childhood obesity, whereas the rest examined obesity in general.
​Of key interest is the article published by Walton, Signal, & Thomson (2009). The researchers aimed at establishing the link between household economic resources and childhood nutrition. Obesity is an outcome of poor nutrition. Consequently, it is arguable that the researchers aim indirectly attempted to associate obesity and household economic resources. Based on a qualitative research model that used the narrative view of the literature, the researchers investigated childhood nutrition within household setting. These model identifies cost hindrances to adequate healthy food as a primary factor in the foods consumed and purchased in the household (Walton, Signal, & Thomson, 2009). Additionally, this model was significantly and explicitly informed by complexity theory and systems theory. By definition, complexity theory concentrates on the study of sophisticated system. In this case, a system refer a collection of objects or processes regarded to be of interest.

Viewing childhood obesity and overweight as social phenomenon that arises from the relevant social system as a whole makes the qualitative model appropriate. Consequently, to comprehend childhood overweight and obesity, the social system must be understood. The only limitation linked toWalton, Signal, & Thomson’s (2009) research model in identifying the economic determinants of childhood obesity is the lack of objectivity. A qualitative study is based on the researcher’s interpretation of the findings. The overall findings of the research showed that the socioeconomic factors influencing childhood obesity include cost of food, food purchasing practices, food available in the community, economic resources available in the house, and the time available for cooking and shopping. 
no image
  
          
            Gender and Popular Culture



Gender plays an extensively important part in shaping the popular culture of between the males and the females. A famous quote of Judith Lorber can be hereby highlighted in this respect, “Talking about gender for most people is the equivalent of fish talking about water”. From this quote, it can be broadly said that the gender depicts the appearance of the natural identities of the people. In our current society the gender discrimination is an immense controversial topic that engages all the people to a great extent. It might be argued that gender shapes popular culture because popular culture shapes femininity and masculinity.

Gender is the identity with which we are born. Gender and sex actually depicts the same meaning. It can be said that gender is absolutely socially constructed. Men and women are being distinguished on the basis of their likes and dislikes and now in the current times, this has become a most popular culture. In the toy stores, it has been perceived that pink toys are kept for the girls while blue ones for the boys (Milestone & Meyer, 2012). Again it is believed and is quite renowned that women like romantic movies whereas the men prefer watching the action movies. Hence all these indicate that there are certain significant symbols or signs that distinguish the males and the females and have become the most popular culture in the recent times. It has been perceived that men and women are recognised by several specific things (like a STOP sign).
Furthermore, the words spoken by the men and the women, their dressing senses, their behaviours, attitudes, sounds, images, thoughts, etc. can be considered to be the most definite signs that differentiate both of them in the society. In the words of Gauntlett the popular culture infiltrates the public and the private spaces that create the ideals. But sometimes these ideals can create popular culture in the society.

In addition to this the popular culture reinforces the ideals and expectations of the hegemonic genders that pose a challenge to both the men and the women in the society. Since gender is constructed socially and not inherent, it can be said that the men and women can be distinguished on the basis of their interactions with the people in the society and the cultural texts that vary from the males and the females. Benato, R. Katie, M & Anneke M have stated that gender identity refers to how a person perceives another one with respect to the femininity and masculinity.
This naturally affects their gender roles. The gender roles identify what is actually acceptable for both the women and the men. The preferences and the choices of the girls and the boys signify their gender differences. In this society, keeping all these factors in mind, a definite culture has been promoted that separates or shapes the males and the females in a specific way. How the men and women perform their actions are partially determined by how the popular culture shapes or frames them in the society.
As argued by Ivashkevich there are some key determinants that symbolise the masculinity and the femininity. In the modern society, males are symbolised as the strong, determined, dominant, empowered, independent, active, aggressive, breadwinner, productive and technology friendly. On the other hand, females are considered to be weak, submissive, vulnerable, dependence, passive, emotional fools, disempowerment, nurturer, objective and working indoors.

In conclusion the binary view of sex has been taken into utmost consideration for the people in the society. When the concept of gender is being discussed, the characteristics, values and principles of the men and the women play a significant role in how we tend to perceive or understand the individuals. Thus we can say that the gender shapes popular culture because popular culture shapes femininity and masculinity.

Chat On Whatsapp

Like Us on Facebook

Follow on instagram

Instagram

Call Us

Total Pageviews

Search This Blog

Blog Archive

Powered by Blogger.

Categories

Labels

Follow by Email

Popular Posts

Featured post

Adenosine A1 receptor activation attenuates cardiac hypertrophy and fibrosis in response to α1-adrenoceptor stimulation in vivo The resear...

Recent Posts