Clothing and Gender in Virginia Woolfs Orlando Essay -- Virginia Wool

Clothing and Gender in Virginia Woolf's Orlando In her novel Orlando, Virginia Woolf tells the story of a man who one night mysteriously becomes a woman. By shrouding Orlando's actual gender change in a mysterious religious rite, we readers are pressured to not question the actual mechanics of the change but rather to focus on its consequences. In doing this, we are invited to answer one of the fundamental questions of our lives, a question that we so often ignore because it seems so very basic - what is a man? What is a woman? And how do we distinguish between the two? It seems that in ordinary life, we are most likely to distinguish between a man and a woman by clothing. This is more difficult to do in the present day, in which women have adapted much traditionally male clothing for their own use, but in the time periods in which Orlando is set it was still the case that men and women wore distinct clothing. If we consider our everyday experience, it becomes clear that this is the means we use, at least from a distance. Other cues such as hairstyle, quality of voice, and so on enter the equation later, but clothing comes first. A man with long hair is eccentric at worst; a man wearing a dress runs the risk of being beaten to a pulp for this transgression. People wishing to undergo a sex-change operation must undergo a period of living as the opposite gender before going through with surgery - the first and most important thing invariably done here is to purchase a new wardrobe. So, if clothes are the cues that we use to differentiate the two genders, then it is no surprise that Orlando's sex change takes place when it does. In the opening paragraph of Chapter Four, upon Orlando's departure from Turkey, Woolf writes... ...ch woman when in fact it is not very clear what she is. Woolf posits that her choice of clothing points to something deeper: "Clothes are but a symbol of something deep beneath. It was a change in Orlando herself that dictated her choice of a woman's dress and of a woman's sex" (188). If only it were possible for us to change our genders and all the social baggage that comes with them merely by changing our clothing? But Orlando's life is in some ways magical, and this makes it possible. Works Cited and Consulted Boehm, Beth A. "Fact, Fiction, and Metafiction: Blurred Gen(d)res in Orlando and A Room of One's Own." Journal of Narrative Technique 22:3 (1992): 191-204. Thompson, Nicola. "Some Theories of One's Own: Orlando and the Novel." Studies in the Novel 25:3 (1993): 306-17. Woolf, Virginia. Orlando: A Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992. Clothing and Gender in Virginia Woolf's Orlando Essay -- Virginia Wool Clothing and Gender in Virginia Woolf's Orlando In her novel Orlando, Virginia Woolf tells the story of a man who one night mysteriously becomes a woman. By shrouding Orlando's actual gender change in a mysterious religious rite, we readers are pressured to not question the actual mechanics of the change but rather to focus on its consequences. In doing this, we are invited to answer one of the fundamental questions of our lives, a question that we so often ignore because it seems so very basic - what is a man? What is a woman? And how do we distinguish between the two? It seems that in ordinary life, we are most likely to distinguish between a man and a woman by clothing. This is more difficult to do in the present day, in which women have adapted much traditionally male clothing for their own use, but in the time periods in which Orlando is set it was still the case that men and women wore distinct clothing. If we consider our everyday experience, it becomes clear that this is the means we use, at least from a distance. Other cues such as hairstyle, quality of voice, and so on enter the equation later, but clothing comes first. A man with long hair is eccentric at worst; a man wearing a dress runs the risk of being beaten to a pulp for this transgression. People wishing to undergo a sex-change operation must undergo a period of living as the opposite gender before going through with surgery - the first and most important thing invariably done here is to purchase a new wardrobe. So, if clothes are the cues that we use to differentiate the two genders, then it is no surprise that Orlando's sex change takes place when it does. In the opening paragraph of Chapter Four, upon Orlando's departure from Turkey, Woolf writes... ...ch woman when in fact it is not very clear what she is. Woolf posits that her choice of clothing points to something deeper: "Clothes are but a symbol of something deep beneath. It was a change in Orlando herself that dictated her choice of a woman's dress and of a woman's sex" (188). If only it were possible for us to change our genders and all the social baggage that comes with them merely by changing our clothing? But Orlando's life is in some ways magical, and this makes it possible. Works Cited and Consulted Boehm, Beth A. "Fact, Fiction, and Metafiction: Blurred Gen(d)res in Orlando and A Room of One's Own." Journal of Narrative Technique 22:3 (1992): 191-204. Thompson, Nicola. "Some Theories of One's Own: Orlando and the Novel." Studies in the Novel 25:3 (1993): 306-17. Woolf, Virginia. Orlando: A Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.

Sippican Case

1 SIPPICAN CORPORATION CASE ANALYSYS 20229 Cost Management System 2 Executive Summary ? Company Overview ? Accounting method ? Production process ? Activities performed ? Q1. Should Sippican use a contribution margin approach? Explanation ? Q2. Capacity cost rates for resources ? Q3. ? a. Revised costs and profits ? b. Product costs and profitability analysis with the new allocation method. Cause of the shifts in values. ? Q4. What actions should the management take to improve Sippican’s profitability? 3 Company overview †¢ Sippican is a company manufacturing hydraulic control devices: alves, pumps and flow controllers †¢ Recent trends (March 2006) ? Valves: margin remained at standard 35% ? Pumps: Sippican’s main business, gross margin fell to 5% (below expect. 35%) ? Flow controllers: price increase by 10% with no effect on demand †¢ Issue Sippican had to react to competitors pumps price reductions to maintain volumes Decline in profitability: pre tax m argin to less than 2% 4 Competitive scenario Sippican †¢ High quality †¢ Unique design †¢ Loyal customer base †¢ Major supplier †¢ High volumes †¢ Commodities †¢ Major presence †¢ Customized †¢ Various typesIndustry Able to match Sippican’s quality, but no bids for market share with price cuts Sippican’sReaction Stable 35% gross margin Valves Pumps Price reduction Price reduction & consequent decline in profitability More production runs and shipments to meet demand + 10% Price increase w/o affecting demand Flow Controllers Much variety of types in the industry 5 Accounting method †¢ Simple cost accounting system , full cost method: ? DM costs= price of components (annual agreement) ? DL= 32. 5$/h (fringe benefits are included); charged on std run times for each product ?OH allocated as % of production-run DL cost (185% current OH rate) †¢ Variable costs are only DL and DM Meeting to consider the possibility of ado pting a contribution margin approach 6 Production process Purchase Machine Assembly ? A unique product department ? Same equipments and labor for all the 3 product lines ? Just in time Valves †¢ 4 components †¢ Standardized †¢ Large lots Pumps †¢ 5 components †¢ Standardized †¢ Products go to industrial distributors after assembly Flow Controllers †¢ Varied&customized: more components, more labor , more products runs 7 Activities Set up 2x 7. h/d shifts; 20 days per month †¢ each time batch components is machined in a production run †¢ 15 workers per shift (25% production workforce) †¢ †¢ †¢ †¢ †¢ 62 machines Workers simultaneously at more machines 45 workers per shift (production&assembly workers) 5,400$/month operating expense Productivity: 6 per shift Production run Receiving and production control †¢ Orderind, processing, inspecting, moving batch componetnts to production runs †¢ 75’ (regardle ss type of production run & components price) †¢ 4 people over the 2 shifts †¢ †¢ †¢ †¢ 50’ per shipment 8’ bubble wrap and pack 14 workers per shift (tot28) 7. h/d shift; 30’ training; 2Ãâ€"15’ breaks *Production& assembly workers: – 2x 15’ breaks 30’ training 30’ preventive mainteinance Packaging and shipping New product design and development †¢ 9750$/m compensation †¢ 7. 5h/d shift 8 Q1: Should executive adopt a contribution margin approach? Yes Costs-volumeprofits analysis No Variable costs:dm&dl significant contribution to oh Pricing decisions No account of all costs related to products Significant fixed costs JIT: no need to incorporate inventories NO: company cost structure significant fixed overhead costs and significant activities influencing the values of the final products the whole analysis will based on the contribution margin approach. The results which will be obtained will be influenced by the use of Time-driven ABC, with the right cost driver allocation to cost pools. It will make the difference for perfoming a more accurate analysis 9 Q2: Compute capacity rates for resources Hrs/month Monthly cost* Production workers 20 $3. 900 Indirect workers 20 $3. 900 Engineers 20 $9. 750 Machines 20 $5. 400 x Paid hrs 7,5 7,5 7,5 Productive hrs 6 6,5 6 12 ? Monthly hrs 120 130 120 240 Cost per hr $32,50 $30,00 $81,25 $22,50 DL Set up Machines Rec&Prod Pack&Shp Eng units 90 30 62 4 28 8 Monthly hrs 120 120 240 130 130 120 Hrs available Hrs used % Capacity used 10800 10700 99,07% 3600 3400 94,44% 14880 14600 98,12% 520 431,25 82,93% 3640 3483,33 95,70% 960 900 93,75% *given by the text Q2 Product data March 2006: 10 Product Lines Valves Pumps Flow Contr. DM units 4 5 10 DM cost 16 20 22 DL h/unit 0,38 0,50 0,4 Machine h/unit 0,5 0,5 0,3 Set up h/unit 5 6 12 Production Units Machine hrs (run time) Production runs Setup hrs(labor&machine) #of shipments Hrs engineerin g work Valves Pumps Flow Contr. 7500 12500 4000 3750 6250 1200 20 100 225 100 600 2700 40 100 200 60 240 600Total 24000 11200 345 3400 340 900 Actual quantities per activity: Activities Set up hrs Machine hrs Receiving& control hrs Packaging & Shipment hrs Engeneering hrs Pr Units x DLhrs Mhrs+set up hrs(machine) 75’/60) x production runs (50’/60’) x #ship + (8’/60’) x pr. Units Eng hrs Valves 2850 3850 25 1. 033,33 60 Pumps 6250 6850 125 1750 240 Flow contr 1600 3900 281,25 700 600 Total hrs used 10700 14600 431,25 3483,33 900 Q3 Valves Pumps Flow Controllers Tot $592. 500,0 $875. 000,0 $380. 000,0 $1. 847. 500,0 $212. 625,0 $453. 125,0 $140. 000,0 $805. 750,0 $120. 000,0 $92. 625,0 $250. 00,0 $203. 125,0 $88. 000,0 $52. 000,0 $458. 000,0 $347. 750,0 11 Q3. a: Revised costs and profits for the 3 product lines Revenues VC DM* DL* Contribution Margin TOH* Machine related expenses Setup labor Setup Machine R&P Control P&S Engeneering $379. 875,0 $421 . 875,0 $126. 499,0 $249. 374,1 $84. 375,0 $3. 250,0 $2. 250,0 $750,0 $30. 999,0 $4. 875,0 $140. 625,0 $19. 500,0 $13. 500,0 $3. 750,0 $52. 499,1 $19. 500,0 $240. 000,0 $253. 687,8 $27. 000,0 $87. 750,0 $60. 750,0 $8. 437,5 $21. 000,3 $48. 750,0 $1. 041. 750,0 $629. 560,9 $252. 000,0 $110. 500,0 $76. 500,0 $12. 937,5 $104. 498,4 $73. 25,0 Gross Margin GS&A Operating Income % Gross Margin * Cost allocation slide 11 $253. 376,0 $172. 500,9 -$13. 687,8 $412. 189,1 $350. 000,0 $62. 189,1 22,31% 42,76% 19,71% -3,60% 12 Cost Allocation: †¢ DM&DL: SQxSP Valves Prod. Units 7500 DM costs 16 DL costs 12. 35 Pumps 12500 20 16. 25 Flow Contr. 4000 22 13 †¢ OH: Activities Set up hrs Machine hrs Receiving& control hrs Packaging & Shipment hrs Engeneering hrs Pr Units x DLhrs Mhrs+set up hrs(machine) (75’/60) x production runs (50’/60’) x #ship + (8’/60’) x pr. Units Eng hrs Valves 2850 3850 25 1. 033,33 60 Pumps 6250 6850 125 1750 240Flow contr 1600 39 00 281,25 700 600 Total hrs used 10700 14600 431,25 3483,33 900 Capacity Costs Production workers 32,5 Indirect workers 30 Machines 81,25 Engineers 22,5 13 Q3. b Product costs and profitability with new cost assignment ? old cost assignment DL cost DM cost Man OH cost (185%) Std Unit cost Target selling price Planned gross margin Actual selling price Actual Gross margin Actual gross margin% Valves Pumps $12,35 $16,25 $16,00 $20,00 $22,85 $30,06 $51,20 $66,31 $78,77 $102,02 35% 35% $79,00 $70,00 $27,80 $3,69 35% 5% Flow C $13,00 $22,00 $24,05 $59,05 $90,85 35% $95,00 $35,95 38% ? new cost assignment:DL cost DM cost Man OH cost Std Unit cost Target selling price Planned gross margin Actual selling price Actual Gross margin Actual gross margin% Valves $12,35 $16,00 $16,87 $45,22 $78,77 43% $79,00 $33,78 43% Pumps $16,25 $20,00 $19,95 $56,20 $102,02 45% $70,00 $13,80 20% Flow C $13,00 $22,00 $63,42 $98,42 $90,85 -8% $95,00 -$3,42 -4% †¢ †¢ – Valves more profitable: 35%( old) vs (43%) No changes in expectations Lower cost allocated: less activities dedicated to their production(std products, large lots) Pumps No meet expectations, but still profitable 20% Lower cost allocated: less activities dedicated to their production (std products) – Flow controllers No profitable: -4% Higher cost: many activities and people used in their production Q3. B 14 †¢ The shift is caused by the Time-driven ABC method: – Costs are allocated to product lines which absorb more costs: more detailed and long production process for flow controllers †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. 15 Q4. What actions should the management take to improve Sippican’s profitability? Flow Controllers †¢ Flow controllers not profitable as expected $253. 87,8 $27. 000,0 $87. 750,0 $60. 750,0 $8. 437,5 $21. 000,3 $48. 750,0 †¢ High setup costs (148000) compared to the other overheads TOH* Machine related expenses Setup labor Setup Machine R&P Control P&S Engeneering Potential s olutions: – Impose a minimum quantity order to lower set up costs Gross margin -3,6 (how to convince customers to buy a minimum quantity? ) – Production process improvement, with lower set up times 16 Q&A

The Rainbow Warrior Bombing

Just before midnight on July 10, 1985, Greenpeace’s flagship Rainbow Warrior was sunk while berthed at Waitemata Harbor in Auckland, New Zealand. Investigations showed that French Secret Service agents had placed two limpet mines on Rainbow Warrior’s hull and propeller. It was an attempt to prevent Greenpeace from protesting French nuclear testing in the Mururoa Atoll in French Polynesia. Of the 11 crew on board the Rainbow Warrior, all but one made it to safety. The attack on the Rainbow Warrior caused an international scandal and greatly deteriorated the relationship between the once friendly countries of New Zealand and France. Greenpeace’s Flagship: The Rainbow Warrior By 1985, Greenpeace was an international environmentalist organization of great renown. Founded in 1971, Greenpeace had worked diligently over the years to help save whales and seals from being hunted, to stop the dumping of toxic waste into oceans, and to end nuclear testing around the world. To aid them in their cause, Greenpeace purchased a North Sea fishing trawler in 1978. Greenpeace transformed this 23-year-old, 417-ton, 131-foot-long trawler into their flagship, Rainbow Warrior. The name of the ship had been taken from a North American Cree Indian prophesy: â€Å"When the world is sick and dying, the people will rise up like Warriors of the Rainbow†¦Ã¢â‚¬  The Rainbow Warrior was easily recognizable by the dove carrying an olive branch at its bow and the rainbow that ran along its side. When the Rainbow Warrior arrived at Waitemata Harbor in Auckland, New Zealand on Sunday, July 7, 1985, it was as a respite between campaigns. The Rainbow Warrior and her crew had just returned from helping evacuate and relocate the small community that lived on Rongelap Atoll in the Marshall Islands. These people had been suffering from long-term radiation exposure caused by the fallout from the U.S. nuclear testing on the nearby Bikini Atoll. The plan was for the Rainbow Warrior to spend two weeks in nuclear-free New Zealand. It would then lead a flotilla of ships out to French Polynesia to protest the proposed French nuclear test at the Mururoa Atoll. The Rainbow Warrior never got a chance to leave port. The Bombing The crew aboard Rainbow Warrior had been celebrating a birthday before going to bed. A few of the crew, including Portuguese photographer Fernando Pereira, had stayed up a bit later, hanging out in the mess room, drinking the last few beers. Around 11:40 pm, an explosion rocked the ship. To some on board, it felt like Rainbow Warrior had been hit by a tugboat. It was later discovered that it was a limpet mine that had exploded near the engine room. The mine tore a 6  ½ by 8-foot hole in the side of the Rainbow Warrior.   Water gushed in. While most of the crew scrambled upward, 35-year-old Pereira headed to his cabin, presumably to retrieve his precious cameras. Unfortunately, that was when a second mine exploded. Placed near the propeller, the second limpet mine really rocked the Rainbow Warrior, causing Captain Pete Willcox to order everyone to abandon ship. Pereira, whether because he was knocked unconscious or trapped by a gush of water, was unable to leave his cabin. He drowned inside the ship. Within four minutes, the Rainbow Warrior tilted to its side and sank. Who Did It? It was really a quirk of fate that lead to the discovery of who was responsible for the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior. On the evening of the bombing, two men happened to take note of an inflatable dinghy and a van nearby that seemed to be acting a bit strangely. The men were intrigued enough that they took down the van’s license plate. This little piece of information set the police on an investigation that led them to the French Direction Generale de la Securite Exterieure (DGSE) – the French Secret Service. The two DGSE agents that had been posing as Swiss tourists and rented the van were found and arrested. (These two agents, Alain Mafart and Dominique Prieur, would be the only two people tried for this crime. They pled guilty to manslaughter and willful damage and received 10-year prison sentences.) Other DGSE agents were discovered to have come to New Zealand on board the 40-foot yacht Ouvea, but those agents managed to evade capture. In total, it is believed that approximately 13 DGSE agents were involved in what the French termed Operation Satanique (Operation Satan). Contrary to all of the building evidence, the French government at first denied any involvement. This blatant cover up greatly angered New Zealanders who felt that the Rainbow Warrior bombing was a state-sponsored terrorist attack against New Zealand itself. The Truth Comes Out On September 18, 1985, the popular French newspaper Le Monde published a story that clearly implicated the French government in the Rainbow Warrior bombing. Two days later, French Minister of Defense Charles Hernu and Director General of the DGSE Pierre Lacoste resigned from their positions. On September 22, 1985, French Prime Minister Laurent Fabius announced on TV: â€Å"Agents of the DGSE sank this boat. They acted on orders.† With the French believing that government agents should not be held responsible for actions conducted while following orders and New Zealanders completely disagreeing, the two countries agreed to have the UN act as a mediator. On July 8, 1986, UN Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar announced that the French were to pay New Zealand $13 million, give an apology, and stop trying to boycott New Zealand produce. New Zealand, on the other hand, had to give up the two DGSE agents, Prieur and Mafart. Once handed over to the French, Prieur and Mafart were supposed to serve out their sentences at Hao Atoll in French Polynesia; however, they were both released within two years – much to the dismay of New Zealanders. After Greenpeace threatened to sue the French government, an international arbitration tribunal was set up to mediate. On October 3, 1987, the tribunal ordered the French government to pay Greenpeace a total of $8.1 million. The French government has yet to officially apologize to Pereira’s family, but has given them an undisclosed sum of money as a settlement. What Happened to the Broken Rainbow Warrior? The damage done to the Rainbow Warrior was irreparable and so the wreck of the Rainbow Warrior was floated north and then re-sunk in Matauri Bay in New Zealand. The Rainbow Warrior became part of a living reef, a place where fish like to swim and recreational divers like to visit. Just above Matauri Bay sits a concrete-and-rock memorial to the fallen Rainbow Warrior. The sinking of the Rainbow Warrior did not stop Greenpeace from its mission. In fact, it made the organization even more popular. To keep up its campaigns, Greenpeace commissioned another ship, Rainbow Warrior II, which was launched exactly four years after the bombing. Rainbow Warrior II worked for 22 years for Greenpeace, retiring in 2011. At which time it was replaced with Rainbow Warrior III, a $33.4 million ship made specifically for Greenpeace.