BP and US Government Negotiations Analysis

BP and US Government Negotiations Analysis Zacharia Dainkeh An evaluation and critical analysis of the decision making process and the negotiations and agreement between BP and the US government including other relevant parties positions regarding the out of court settlement with respect to the Deepwater Horizon BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in the United States of America On the 20th of April 2010, the Golf of Mexico was rocked by an explosion from the Deepwater Horizon oil platform, and caused serious environmental and economic damage. In response BP provided a swift response to remedy the crisis by employing the services of Entrix, a renowned environmental consulting firm in the United States to evaluate the oil spill impact. Since Entrix is specialised in assessing crisis such as the impact such as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Even though the U. S. administration attempted to distance itself from British Petroleum in handling of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico,   the willingness for both parties to work together in assessing the nature and scope of the level of harm caused by oil spill, shows as a notable exception. BP is a British owned MNC/oil company that leased the Deepwater Horizon rig, owned and operated by Transocean, an offshore drilling oil company. The Deepwater Horizon oil spill is as of yet the biggest environmental disaster to have rocked the United States in its history. That precipitated scores of negotiations to settle financial claims of the affected parties, immediately after BP had claimed responsibility. Taken together, the rulings meant that BP was on the hook for a fine of up to $13.7 billion under the Clean Water Act alone. Billions more could be levied from a federal Resource Natural Damage Assessment. Following the 2010 catastrophic BP oil spill off the coast of New Orleans, in the Gulf of Mexico, which instantaneously led to a criminal investigation by the U.S Department of Justice? It would be recalled that this dreadful event induced a quagmire of complex legal proceedings against BP, Transocean and Anadarko for a violation of two Federal Acts of government. At the initial stage the path towards settlement was doubtful, after the September 2014 ruling, during which BP was held to be grossly negligent It was estimated that over 3.19 million barrels of oil was spilled from the disaster off the coastal areas of Southern United States in the Gulf of Mexico. the Clean Water and Oil Pollution respectively. By and large, the rationale of this paper will critically focus to unravel the complexity of the decision making and negotiating process(s) that eventually yielded a compensation settlement to those affected. Beach defines negotiations as actions aimed at helping the parties in a n egotiation to overcome high transaction costs, enabling the achievement of mutually acceptable outcomes that would otherwise not be reached. (Beach, 2012). It is the responsibility of senior management leaders to facilitate negotiations in times particularly in time of crisis, which is considered as part of a strategic management decision making process and shaping the agenda by determining relevant issues to be discussed. Before then, a risk assessment should have been done which will provide an advance warning of any unknown or known recommendation in preparation for the negotiating team of respective parties. The first section seek to identify the relevant parties to the negotiated agreement between British Petroleum (BP) and the (U. S. Department of Justice (USDOJ), which includes relevant claimants and the purported parties responsible for the damaged and the two main dominant party of the final negotiations that derived from the Deep-water Horizon oil spill. This case study will proffer unravel how wide range of issues are addressed in the current literatures of oil spill devastations in relation to the negotiations process and application of the definition and relevant theory to this case study with a supporting argument to justify the dominant party position. The second part of this paper an attempt to illustrate and describe alternative perspectives and approaches that could have been explore by other relevant parties to improved their bargaining outcome that may have reduce or prevent the scale of relative dominance observed as displayed in the decision making and negotiating process that eventually resulted to the structured settlement reached in this case. In the third and final section, the main focus will proffer to provide meaningful suggestions as to the method and approach in future scenario and advise based on the conclusive assessment and analysis of the negotiated parties, with respect to their decision making and negotiating process and its (their) outcome with the relevant lesson learnt based on the BP oil spill structured settlement. Finally, a conclusion will closed this paper with reference drawn from the respective dominant parties, decision making process; lesson learned and proffer solution on lesson learned from the case study, followed by a summarized conclusion. This   paper seek to evaluation and critically analyze the decision-making and negotiated agreement processes between the relevant affected parties with main focus on the two major parties; namely: (British Petroleum-BP), the responsible party for the damages and the relevant claimants main representative on the final negotiated agreement the United States Department of Justice. Furthermore, an analysis of the settlement stages and process towards the structured settlement will also be assessed. An evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the interconnected interest of MNC such as BP financial strength, investments, influence and association with the U.S economy and government socioeconomic, environmental and political interest with a need for a balance and an objective assessment that will unravel the true winners and losers of this negotiated agreement. The parties to the agreement are from two separate angles, namely the claimants and responsible partie(s), the claimants are as follows: The United States of America Government represented by The U. U. Department of Justice (USDOJ were the main and dominant party that represented all claimants in the negotiations that concluded the structured settlement reached with BP), U. S. Coast Guard, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, media, Oil Industry, Environmental activist and organizations, Fishermen, Tourist-driven Communities, Tourist Driven- Business, Tourists, Oil spill, Cleanup Workers and Home owners and developers. Whiles the responsible parties are British Petroleum (BP owner of the well), who happens to be the dominant responsible party, justification for the dominant parties will be explained later. BP was also the main party that negotiated as the responsible party with the USDOJ, and Transocean (owner and operator of the Deepwater Horizon), both of whom were name d as the responsible parties by the U.S. Coast Guard. For clarity purposes, it is important to understand that among the above mentioned parties the dominant parties in the out of court settlement were BP and the United States Government. This was so because BP owner of the well, with vicarious liability, is the main responsible party and the United States Government as a democratically elected government, for obvious reasons, its part of its responsibilities to not only represent the claimants, but to create a balance between the interest of the victims and the responsible party and to ensure that an appreciated deal is reached in the interest of the victims and the responsible party within an acceptable redress, but   are forced to take one side and be tough with BP to ensure that an adequate compensation is paid that commensurate to the damaged and loss caused. As the main representative of all claimants. It was believed that the government has the required expertise to accurately determine the financial means and compensate those that lost their jobs, property etc by reimbursing them with financial assistance from the responsible party,   If they pay the bills, theyre welcome at the table, said Peter Tuttle, an environmental contaminant specialist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service who is coordinating NRDA activities among Interior Department bureaus. From a superficial glance, the ambition behind this legislation was to redress two major concerns: 1) unbearable delays and 2) fiercely problematic legal battles in subsequent oil spill catastrophes (see Issacharoff and Rave, 2014: 399). The prevailing perspective of relevant actors were mixed as the process continued. To some, the entire agreement was very important especially on the part of BP and the United States government in getting the balance right in an attempt seek its national interest and to protecting its investors (MNC) and BP is keen in regaining back lost confidence from its investors and those residing in the affected areas. With such deal in place, BP was seen to have provided assurances to its current and potential investors that they are willing to sincerely honour their own part of any agreement reached in compensating those residing in the Gulf in case of any environmental harm done whilst they continue to carry out their activities within the Gulf Coast. Why not, some will hold this argument that the fact that BP was willing to stepped aside and allow the establishment of an Independent Claim Facility, it was an efficient move geared towards properly assessing claims and counter claims made by BP to an extent it was ascertained that BP doesnt have what it takes to quantify or properly determined and estimate the damage claims as such responsibility doesnt fall within its functions and was asked to refrained from the matter of surveying and working claims. The Feinberg claims facility though at some point was deemed to have worked more than its predecessor, it also faced serious condemnation on its objectivity in handling the whole process as it was paid by BP and there was a possibility that its more committed to it employer. Criticisms were also made against Feinberg Law firm that the way it handled the process was too slow and marred with delays, tough and unfair in handing out monies. Both claims were denied by BP. Other actors said BP agreed for an out of court settlement because they want to settle the victims far less than what it would have cost them had the matter settle in court. They deliberately and cleverly agreed to allowed the court to monitored the compensation process creating an atmosphere in the minds of the victims that what they are doing is in line with whatever agreement they could have reached in court, but in reality, it was very clear that BP with its financial might, was just too smart and powerful with its n egotiating team for the Golf Oil Spilled victims as the out of court settlement seriously cut down their financial responsibility to the victims. Surprisingly they used the same court they refused to go to monitor the process. Whatever the outcome was, the fact is that, it was always going to be very difficult in determining oil spill disasters against these multi billions oil companies if laid down rules and regulations arent put in place that can stand the test of times. For instance, the International Tankers Owners Pollution Federation states: the tendency to react to political, media public perception and pressures rather than basing decisions on technical realities, is a special problem that can also escalate the cost of any incident beyond what would be considered reasonable under the International Compensation Convention( ITOPF). This is a terrifying one sided analysis with a sense to purely exonerate oil companies that they are often treated unfairly by he mentioned parties during oil spill disasters. Taking these words in to serious consideration one would be tempted to ask whether BP compensation was commensurate to their purported damaged caused in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Guif of Mexico? As there is no laid down straight formula to determine such payments according to the International Tankers Owners Pollution Federation. With incidents and circumstances of oil spill changes from one to another and in most cases depends on close factors say for instance the type of oil, the location of the spill and characteristics of the affected area as well as the effectiveness of the preventive measures and genuine commitment of the management, we shall continue to face problems, if well established rules arent put in place to asses oil spills. The oils and gas industrys was and is said to made significant moves in developing advance technological ideas relating to the extraction of oil in the Deepwater Horizon, but make no mistake, their ideas doesnt stand the test of times. And in terms of developing robust pre-emptive measures to tackle potential oil spills and hold oil companies objectively responsible for potential reckless actions, there is more than meet the eye with the current pre-emptive measures. Whilst some analysts would agree that the $ 500 million from fines and penalties from BP and Transoceans meant to improve precautionary measures through well research based materials with development in education and training was a brilliant move; its also true that large cooperation the likes of BP have well experienced total legal practitioners whose main focus is to always look for loopholes within the ambit of the established laws to minimise financial effect of the company. Currently, laws and policies within the lo ss of multibillion companies for any potential reckless actions against society and people residing in their areas of operations needs reforms to block the use of escape routes in mitigating liability irrespective of political influence. It is imperative that to flesh up my argument by looking at the current liability rule for civilian nuclear power with respect to the Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity, which clearly shows the important disparities between the Price Anderson Acts and what the Administration considered supporting in their 2010 discussions with Congressional Staff. From those discussions, it was established that the Price Andersen value total damaged loss at about $ 12 billion in 2011, which was later assumed by analysts may not be sufficient to address future financial damage of any nuclear incident and is also lacking the required precautionary measures. The said Act is also considered to be unfriendly in tackling potential spill situations as it failed to efficiently address the regular payment of premiums for insurance nuclear power plants activities as it only pay in to compensation funds when disaster occur at a nuclear power plant facility and in such situations, such monies exceed the initi al $ 375 million stated operator damage responsibility fees. Its also very important to lay down very clear quality rules and regulations with the clean understanding to check and confirm that the well genuine established preventive measures are correctly adhere to for firms operating in the insurance scheme. With the seldom oil spills, theres a lack of well reliable information to reference in appropriately and fairly determining potential premium for disaster victims. With this in mind, there should be an independent body with continuous free access to check and determine high level of safety with punitive measures for firms that fails to efficiently adhere to the agreed standard rules of operation. The need for sharing information of defaulters in public is also necessary as it will raise genuine concerns within companys shareholders, in the first instance, they will learn about the poor way administration is protecting the credibility of their company. This will move genuine investors to question whether company administrators are genuine enough to operate within the agreed standard laid down rules as part of it operations commitment in the Deep water Horizon. In conclusion, agreed parties can base their strength in the knowledge of the industries and it expertise to form the industry rules and regulations; whilst the government could ask for joint experience guarantee safety as a requirement for any firm to demand authorisation act of boring a hole in the Deepwater Horizon.

Using the Power of both Phonics and Whole Language Essay -- Teaching E

Whichever way you learned to read, chances are you never knew what the terms â€Å"phonics† or â€Å"whole language† meant. However, these are the terms that are at opposite ends of an on-going debate over the best way to teach children how to read. â€Å"Simply stated, supporters of the whole language approach think children's literature, writing activities, and communication activities can be used across the curriculum to teach reading; backers of phonics instruction insist that a direct, sequential mode of teaching enables students to master reading in an organized way† (Cromwell, 1997). Critics of phonics claim that the curriculum is too boring, that the endless worksheets will turn children away from the joy that could be reading and writing. Critics of whole language, however, claim that there is too little structure and that the students will fail to properly comprehend what they are reading and spell words correctly (Curtis, 1997). At times the debate has become rather polarized, despite the fact that the methods are not necessarily dichotomous. People have often politicized the debate as well, which fails to keep the best interest of students in mind (Rothstein, 200; Strickland, 1998). Instead of choosing between a phonics based and a whole language method of teaching reading, educators should use a combination that is specifically tailored to the needs of his/her individual students. This allows the students to use their phonics knowledge within a larger whole language context, eventually instilling in children a desire to read and enabling them to read well. Phonics Phonics is a very systematic approach to teaching reading that involves the breaking down of words into smaller parts. This process is called decoding. It focus... ...ational Leadership, 55(6). 6-10. Retrieved March 7, 2003 from the Web. http://www.ascd.org/cms/objectlib/ascdframeset/index.cfm?publication=http://www.ascd.org/publications/ed_lead/199803/strickland.html Willows, D. (2002, January). The Balanced Literary Diet. School Administrator, 59(1). 30-33. Retrieved April 23, 2003 from the Web. http://www.aasa.org/publications/sa/2002_01/Willows.htm Pappano, L. (2001, November 25). Teaching Reading No Longer One-Size Fits All. Boston Globe. Retrieved March 6, 2003 from LexisNexis Academic database. Rothstein, R. (2001, September 5). Consensus in Reading War If Sides Would Only Look. New York Times. Retrieved April 24, 2003 from LexisNexis Academic database. Schemo, D.J. (2002, February 9). California Leads Chorus of Sounded-Out Syllables. New York Times. Retrieved March 6, 2003 from LexisNexis Academic database.

Critically assess Catholic Church teaching on IVF with particular emphasis on third party involvement

Moral theology includes concerns of a particular or special nature as well as those of a general or fundamental nature. There is thus a two-fold division in moral theology – fundamental moral theology (which we have been doing up to now) and special moral theology. They are intricately related. Special moral theology deals with concrete moral issues that relate to sexuality, medical practice, business relations, social ethics. Fundamental moral theology shows the ‘why’ behind the ‘what’ of special issues.Disagreement at the level of concrete issues often can be traced to different understandings of the foundational concerns of morality. One of the most high profile special issues at the present time is Assisted Human Reproduction (AHR). This lecture concerns what is perhaps the most well known technique in the treatment of infertility: In Vitro Fertilisation (IVF). The First ‘Test-tube’ Baby On July 25, 1978, Louise Brown was born in Oldh am, England, using IVF. She was the first so-called ‘test-tube’ baby, the culmination of years of pioneering research by Patrick Steptoe and Robert Edwards.IVF is a gruelling, though relatively straightforward process. The ovaries are chemically stimulated to produce multiple eggs since pregnancy rates increase with transfer of more than one embryo. The eggs are recovered by laparoscopy, then coincubated with sperm for around 12-18 hours to allow fertilisation to occur. After an additional 48-72 hours, the embryo (or pre-embryo) is transferred to the uterine cavity by a catheter. If successful, implantation will occur in 2-3 days.Success rate is 20-25 per cent – approaches that of the natural process†¦.. much more expensive of course! Standard IVF: This is the simple procedure – sperm and ovum come from husband and wife, and the pre-embryo is implanted in the uterus of the wife. Church Teaching: Congregation For The Doctrine Of The Faith: â€Å"Instr uction on Respect for Human Life in its Origins and on the Dignity of Procreation† (Donum Vitae). 1987. The CDF rejected ‘simple case’ artificial reproduction (AIH and IVF) with the gametes of husband and wife.The analysis that led the congregation to reject IVF is as follows: â€Å"The Church’s teaching on marriage and human procreation affirms the inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative†. The ‘unitive meaning’ refers to the union of two bodies in sexual intercourse; the ‘procreative meaning’ refers to the principle that all acts of sexual intercourse should be open to the possibility of procreation.Both the unitive and procreative meanings of the conjugal act are derived from the natural law. Just as contraception separates the unitive and procreative dimensions of sexual expression, so also, in an analogous way, do technological interventions such as in vitro fertilisation and artificial insemination by husband (AIH). Some moral theologians, notably Richard A. McCormick SJ, argue against the teaching of the CDF, basing their arguments on the reforms of Vatican II.The argument goes as follows: The centuries-old primacy given to procreation over other meanings of sexual expression was â€Å"publicly and definitively abandoned† by Vatican II. Another principal change is the criterion to be used in judging the rightfulness or wrongfulness of human conduct. The second Vatican Council shifted the criterion of moral judgement away from faculties and their purposes to a strong emphasis on the centrality of the person. It proposed as the criterion not â€Å"the intention of nature inscribed in the organs and their functions but the person integrally and adequately considered†.One must discover what is promotive or destructive of the person. The physical facul ties must not be considered in isolation from the person. McCormick argues that there is â€Å"an evolution of doctrine occurring with regard to the understanding of the unitive and procreative dimensions of sexuality.. †. Development of doctrine usually involves both continuity and change. The thread that yields both continuity and change is the notion of the inseparability of the unitive-procreative dimensions of sexuality.The continuity: the general validity of the insight. The change: a broadened understanding away from an act-analysis of this inseparability. Theologians argue that IVF is not a substitution for sexual intimacy, but a kind of prolongation of it, as well as a perfection of it in that it remedies infertility – it does not involve the total severance of the unitive and the procreative. The natural law principle can be upheld if the spheres of the unitive and the procreative are held together so that there is no procreation apart from marriage i. . , th ere is no procreation apart from the conjugal relationship as opposed to the conjugal act, and no full sexual intimacy apart from a context of responsibility for procreation. The inseparability principle is retained, but such inseparability is something to be realised in the relationship, and not the individual act. It must be stressed, however, that McCormick’s argument is not accepted by the magisterium of the Catholic Church:- cf. Vatican Council 2, Vol. 2, ed. by Austin Flannery (New York: Costello Publishing Company, 1982), p. 98, par. 3. Third party involvement: Third-party involvement in infertility treatment involves donor eggs, donor sperm, donor embryos, donor wombs.Pius XII in 1949 said â€Å"Artificial insemination in marriage with the use of an active element from a third person is †¦.. immoral and as such is to be rejected summarily. Only marriage partners have mutual rights over their bodies for the procreation of new life, and these rights are exclusive, nontransferable and inalienable†. Between the child and at least one rearing parent there is â€Å"no bond of rigin, no moral and juridical bond of procreation†. Karl Rahner agrees: argued that AID fundamentally separates the marital union from the procreation of a new person. Rahner also faults the anonymity of the donor, which represents a refusal of responsibility as father and an infringement of the rights of the child. Does 3rd party involvement (via gametic donation or surrogate gestation) infringe on conjugal exclusivity? Does having a jointly raised child justify such infringement? McCormick answers ‘Yes’ to the first question and ‘No’ to the second.The notion of conjugal exclusivity should include the genetic, gestational and rearing dimensions of parenthood. Separating these dimensions, except through rescue (as in adoption) contains a subtle diminishment of the human person. Where there is donor semen or eggs, there is a genetic asy mmetry in the relationship of husband and wife to the child, with possible damaging psychological effects. Third party involvement separates procreation from marriage in principle – decisively breaks the natural law unitive-procreative principle.The question of the freezing and destruction of embryos, the implanting of multiple embryos with the consequent high possibility of miscarriage and also the carrying out of ‘foetal reduction’. Genetic screening of embryos. The above are further important ethical issues that have arisen due to IVF. Resources: www. google. com Type in ‘Catholic Church teaching on IVF’, and ‘IVF’, etc. Catechism of the Catholic Church: pars. 2373-2379. The Catechism allows that homologous artificial insemination and fertilisation (standard IVF) are â€Å"less reprehensible† than those that involve third party donation of sperm, eggs or uterus.

The Modern Family - 1992 Words

Introduction Culture provides a basic model with which to help organise society, and to predict the behaviour of others. There are different cultural formations; these formations depend on complex elements. In the modern world the term â€Å"family,† for instance, has divergent meanings. There may be one, or multiple individuals, involved in the rearing of a child; all with diverse roles and features, genders, or even interests in the child. We live in a diverse world, not just in the United States, but globally. Preparing children for a leadership role in this world also requires that we take into account individual micro- and macro-differences, celebrate those differences, and view the family as assisting in any way possible the positive†¦show more content†¦Instead, it appears that what makes a modern family is less tangible and economically oriented, and more qualitatively defined. A modern family is about love, compassion, and care (Levy, R., et al., 2002). Media Portrayals of Family The Media plays a pivotal role within modern society; it is invasive and almost forms a new cultural paradigm. In fact, it is so pervasive with Smartphones, Tablets, Laptops, and more that we can even use a theoretical basis for understanding the roles in which media promulgate in order to try to understand the roles and influences media may have on younger people. For the past several decades, scholars have been trying to answer questions about whether the media have a negative effect on viewers and their perception of social institutions (Anderson Warburton, 2012). Certainly one paradigm holds that there are a number of positive effects of the media – learning modes, exposure to more facts, better entertainment, more choices, and even learning about unique cultural situations that would be impossible otherwise. Conversely, violence and sexuality in the media have the very real tendency to reshape the view of the family as a cultural institution, particularly for adolescent s. Children and teens, in particular, have not cognitively developed enough (the brain’s frontal lobes) to judge reality from fantasy atShow MoreRelatedModern Television And Modern Family858 Words   |  4 Pagesraising a family, values have been put into action. Throughout the centuries of family-making, more and more values have been added, some have been changed, and have even dissipated. Even though there are families that keep the same traditional values, television shows such as Modern Family and The New Normal show how modern television altered those family values which include traditional marriage, family makeup, and sexuality. Modern television is one of many examples of how family values ofRead MoreModern Family : A Traditional Family2343 Words   |  10 Pagesbeen familiarized with a specific perception of a traditional family: a working man, his stay at home wife, and their children. When the term â€Å"modern family† is brought up, people still primarily go back to the thought of a woman and a man being married to each other with a couple of children that they work together to support. It wasn’t until roughly about 1980 that the â€Å"traditionally family† underwent changes to become a more â€Å"modern family.† This means that the â€Å"traditional† definition has changedRead MoreModern Family Vs. Present Family Essay1233 Words   |  5 Pages1950s Family vs. Present Family There is always that one question that has been on everyone’s mind, what does a real â€Å"family† look like? What is a â€Å"family?† What are mothers supposed to do? fathers? children? What are their gender roles? Well, during the 1950s, there were many families whom believed that the show â€Å"I Love Lucy† portrayed the perfect family, but that was back in the â€Å"good old days†. It has been more than 50 years and there are still current shows today that portray a perfect familyRead MoreThe Evolution of the Modern Family927 Words   |  4 PagesBecoming a single parent today is more of a choice or an inevitable result of tragedy, rather than an effect of unplanned promiscuity as it is misconceived by many. The modern single parent may choose to parent solo because it has become evident that divorce is better option rather than keeping a child in an unhappy and unstable family living situation. Today’s society has created many obtainab le avenues to aid in the single parent’s quest to parenthood. In a world where being a single parent is becomingRead MoreIs This A Modern Family?1961 Words   |  8 PagesWill Dudley MAC 212 11/15/14 Is This a Modern Family? A family sits down together on a Wednesday night to escape the noise of their everyday lives and turns on the TV to catch their favorite family show, Modern Family on ABC. They turn on the television and switch to ABC to find it is the Wedding episode between Cam and Mitchell. There’s a small preview for the episode showing Cam and Mitchell through the seasons. The show revolves around three families and their ins and outs through this crazyRead MoreOverview of the Family in the Mockumentary: Modern Family Essay1107 Words   |  5 Pages The Modern Mockumentary The average family: a married man and women, 2.5 children, with a beautiful home that has a white picket fence and a dog. However, this â€Å"average† family image has changed drastically over the past decade particularly with the acceptance of gay marriage and green cards that are easier to obtain; this has had a substantial influence not only on our society but leverage on social media. An example of this changed media dynamic is displayed through the comedic mockumentaryRead MoreQueer Identity : Modern Family1460 Words   |  6 PagesRunning Head:QUEER IDENTITY: MODERN FAMILY 2 Today society displays greater diversity within households. Most American households are now non-traditional or unconventional. Non-traditional or unconventional families include; single parenthood, singlehood and LGBT relationships. Modern family is a comedy exploring the different â€Å"modern† families. This show explores a huge unconventional family through a gay couple, made up of Mitchell and Cameron, and their adopted daughter Lily; a straight coupleRead MoreGender Criticism Of Modern Family1019 Words   |  5 PagesAs we all know the term nuclear family is defined as a husband, wife and their two children. However in recent decades we see through many television shows such as Modern Family breaking this ideal hegemonic family structure. The show Modern Family presents its audience a very live action of dysfunctional families, that contains gay parents as promoting a new sense of family value. Although this show attempts to portray a contemporary view of American fami lies, it still emphasizes stereotype ofRead MoreGender Roles Of Modern Family935 Words   |  4 PagesGender Roles in Modern Family Modern family is a ongoing TV show that follows the lives of three different families. The first family consists of Jay, his second wife, Gloria, and her son Manny. The second family is made up of Jay’s son Mitchell, his partner, Cam, and their adopted daughter, Lily. The final family consists of Jay’s daughter Claire, her husband, Phil, and their three kids, Hailey, Alex, and Luke. Modern Family sets out to show the everyday lives of these three households and the differentRead MoreAbc s Modern Family Essay1641 Words   |  7 PagesABC’s Modern Family is a documentary-style comedy series that surrounds the lives of a diverse family. The family is made up of parents Phil and Claire who have two daughters and a son. Claire’s dad, Jay and his Latina wife, Gloria raise two sons of their own but people often believe Jay is Gloria’s father because of the age difference. Jay has a gay son, Mitchell, who lives with his partner Cameron and their adopted As ian daughter. Three different but related families make a unique show and are