This poem is considered "feminist" because it represents the ability of a woman to be extraordinary and remarkable among others. It shows that, although women are founded in the notion of lack (lack of male equipment), women are able to have a place in society and have the same rights as men have. A woman in this poem is represented as someone who can work and survive for her life by the strength she has. Also, the poem emphasizes the idea that women can be successful not by using her external beauty but by using much beyond her outer appearance.
We Should All Be Feminists
We Should All Be Feminists is a personal, eloquently-argued essay – adapted from the much-viewed Tedx talk of the same name – by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie.
‘My own definition of a feminist is a man or a woman who says, yes, there is a problem with gender as it is today and we must fix it, we must do better. all of us, women and men, must do better.’
This essay has never been more relevant, important or necessary. It is a wonderful introduction to feminism and its growing purpose in today's society. however, it is just an introduction, as the brief length only allows for Adichie to concisely outline what feminism is and why it is important. but the topic itself is one that could fill tomes. and i have never read a statement that so efficiently and passionately describes the struggle for gender equality.
This book is a call to action, one that every human should be willing to answer.
The message behind this video is clear: what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Despite all of the abuses and difficult situations Madonna had to deal with troughout her life, she managed to leave them all behind and become stronger day by day. "I wasn't alone", she explains, "I have many people who I have to say Thank You here". There are no magic solutions to our problems. The only cure is self believe. Our talents are gifts from God which are sent to us with a purpose. We have to take advantage of them in life, especially at difficult times. The good thing is that everything teaches us a lesson, good or bad, but something to carry on for the rest of our life.
"The fall of the Berlin Wall and the Multiplication of Western Walls"
About James Petras
James Petras is a Bartle Professor (Emeritus) of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York.
He is the author of more than 62 books published in 29 languages, and over 600 articles in professional journals, including the American Sociological Review, British Journal of Sociology, Social Research, and Journal of Peasant Studies. He has published over 2000 articles in nonprofessional journals such as the New York Times, the Guardian, the Nation, Christian Science Monitor, Foreign Policy, New Left Review, Partisan Review, TempsModerne, Le Monde Diplomatique, and his commentary is widely carried on the internet.
His publishers have included Random House, John Wiley, Westview, Routledge, Macmillan, Verso, Zed Books and Pluto Books. He is winner of the Career of Distinguished Service Award from the American Sociological Association’s Marxist Sociology Section, the Robert Kenny Award for Best Book, 2002, and the Best Dissertation, Western Political Science Association in 1968. His most recent titles include Unmasking Globalization: Imperialism of the Twenty-First Century (2001); co-author The Dynamics of Social Change in Latin America (2000), System in Crisis (2003), co-author Social Movements and State Power (2003), co-author Empire With Imperialism (2005), co-author)Multinationals on Trial (2006).
He has a long history of commitment to social justice, working in particular with the Brazilian Landless Workers Movement for 11 years. In 1973-76 he was a member of the Bertrand Russell Tribunal on Repression in Latin America. He writes a monthly column for the Mexican newspaper, La Jornada, and previously, for the Spanish daily, El Mundo. He received his B.A. from Boston University and Ph.D. from the University of California at Berkeley.
KEY CONCEPTS FROM THE PAPER.
NATO
NATO is an alliance of countries from Europe and North America. It provides a unique link between these two continents, enabling them to consult and cooperate in the field of defence and security, and conduct multinational crisis-management operations together.
LEGAL WALLS Many refugees who flee the war zones crash up against the European ‘legal walls’ –immigration restrictions, concentration camps and prolonged detentions.
BAD WALLS Walls that protect Communist, nationalist or leftist regimes are repressive, dehumanizing and must fall
GOOD WALLS Walls that keep out victims of imperialist wars are progressive and necessary for ‘national security
Sadly, walls are built
for much the same set of reasons as ancient walls. We have defense walls
against external threats of terrorism and infiltration by insurgents. There are
walls that separate conflicting cultures and religions, walls that establish
ownership of land, barriers that regulate trade, and fences that restrict
migration of civilians. The attributes of walls have changed from earthwork,
bricks and masonry to sophisticated structures that include concrete, razor
wire, sensors, personnel, dogs, infrared equipment, patrol vehicles, drones,
helicopters, planes and satellites. There are additional invisible walls made
of legal and digital barriers to restrict the movement of goods and people, and maritime
systems to detect unauthorized boats.
Like ancient
walls, modern ‘security walls’ are only partially successful in accomplishing
their goals. No physical barrier can provide effective protection against
homegrown terrorists and modern weapons. No fortification can stop migrants who
arrive by air and sea. No wall will reduce the drug flow when most of it
crosses the border through legal entry points. More than ever before, walls
today are politically motivated, reflecting signaling behavior by governments
who wish to appear tough on immigration, and serving the interests of defense
industries that stand to benefit from the projects. Economic literature
overwhelmingly suggests that policies of more open borders, with less
restrictive migration and trade, benefit domestic citizens more than walls.
Economic policies are also more effective than walls in dealing with illegal
trade and trafficking, while diplomacy is more effective than walls in
addressing security. Ignoring rational economic thinking over populist politics
comes at a price, a loss in well-being.
Get to know our continuously interconnected world with talks that transcend our traditional understanding of boundaries and their limitations.
Taiye Selasi explores our relationship with our multiple identities.
This video is about a girl named Taiye Salasi who refuses to accept the fact that a person is from the country where he/she was born. Taiye was born in England and grew up in the United States. She says that wherever she goes people call her "multinational". She does not agree with this term and she explains why is this so. Taiye does not think that a country is an absolute, fixed point in place and time. On the contrary, a country, in Taiye's opinion, is a thing that could be born- die- expand- etc and it hardly seems to be the basis for understanding a human being. What we call "countries" are actually a sovereign statehood and an idea that come to fashion 400 years ago.
Taiye claims to be a multi-local instead of a multinational person as she thinks that all experience is local. She says that what makes her come from the United States is not the passport but the experiences she had in that country. She proposes a three-step we should all have in mind at the time of answering where are we from Ritual, Relationships, and Restrictions. First, you have to think about your everyday rituals (have a shower,
making coffee in the morning, go to work, etc). Second, you have to think about your relationships and about the people who shape your days (to whom you speak once a week, to whom you speak every day, etc). Third, restrictions in the sense of where you are able to live or what passport you hold. It is a good idea to write these three in a piece of paper whenever someone asks us where we are from.
I found this video fascinating because I have never thought about all these things when someone asks me where am I from. It made me think of a friend of mine who visited a lot of countries throughout her life and when she tells me about her trips I feel that she has a part of her in each country. She is from Argentina, but her best experiences took place in the different places she has been. I also thought about how interesting it is to take a minute and think about all these Rituals, Relationships and Experiences we had in the different places we have been before answering the questions "Where are you from?". In fact, the experiences and how we managed certain situations are what make a place important for us.
ARGUMENTS FOR THE DEATH PENALTY 1)It’s not a deterrent against the crimes 2)Would it be acceptable if people from all sections of society were executed ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY 1)The death penalty is irreversible and results in the death of innocents
2)The death penalty is never acceptable. It abuses two of our most basic human rights: everyone has the right to live and no one should be subject to torture.
3)The right to life is inalienable: it cannot be given and it cannot be taken away, no matter how terrible the crime. 4)The right to life is inalienable: it cannot be given and it cannot be taken away, no matter how terrible the crime.
Watch this video in which the actor Jeremy Irons outlines arguments against capital punishment
↓
SHORT DESCRIPTION of the contents of the source Jeremy Irons explains that there are many arguments against the death penalty. It’s not an impediment against the crimes that it punishes because societies who use the death penalty don’t have lower crime rates than those that do. The death penalty targets the economically disadvantaged: those who can’t afford good legal counsel, those without a voice in society.
The death penalty is irreversible and results in the death of innocents. Execution is the ultimate, irrevocable punishment: the risk of executing an innocent person can never be eliminated. When someone is dead a retrospective pardon is of little use to them or their family. therefore, the death penalty is never acceptable. The death penalty violates the most fundamental human right, the right to life. It is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. Human rights are thus called because they apply to all human beings. They belong to all of us equally. An attack on these fundamental rights anywhere is an attack against all of us. The right to life is inalienable: it cannot be given and it cannot be taken away, no matter how terrible the crime.
TASKS FROM BRITISH COUNCIL WEB PAGE. Match the definitions (a–f) with the vocabulary (1–6). 1. D harsh 2. A a perpetrator 3 E to deter someone
from doing something 4.F to re-offend 5. C rehabilitative 6. B empathy a. someone who has committed a crime or a violent act b. the ability to understand how other people feel c. able to bring someone back to health or a normal life d. strict; severe e. to make someone avoid or stop doing something f. to commit a crime again (not for the first time) Are the sentences true or false?
Answer 1. The first paragraph should explain the question in your own words. TRUE 2. You shouldn’t give your opinion until the conclusion. FALSE 3. You must always give both sides of the argument. FALSE 4. Structures like One justification for … and The first thing to consider is …
link ideas together, and help the reader follow your argument. TRUE 5. Modal verbs (e.g. may in Prison may not be an effective punishment)
make sentences sound more certain. FALE 6. If you think of an extra idea, mention it in the conclusion. FALSE Task 2 Complete the sentences with words and phrases from the box. However, One justification for Owing to, The first thing to consider, In conclusion, It could be argued that, Personally, A further reason to 1. The first thing to consider is what the purpose of prison is. 2. One justification for | harsh prison sentences is that they act as a deterrent. However, there is very little evidence to support this claim. 3. A further reason to justify putting people in prison is to keep them away from society. 4. Personally, I believe that prison should aim to rehabilitate people and reform
violent criminals so they are less likely to re-offend. 5. It could be arguedthat prison works mainly as a punishment. Owing to overcrowded,
cramped and sometimes violent conditions, prison is not a pleasant place to be. 6. In conclusion, prison may not do everything that we want it to do but it does serve as
an unpleasant punishment. Task 3 Tick the three sentences that are more tentative. Prison sentences are more effective in 29 per cent of cases. It seems that prison sentences are more effective. It might be argued that unpaid work exploits criminals. Unpaid work exploits criminals. This may suggest that the criminal is not a danger to others. These kinds of criminals are no danger to others.
Some people think that some types of criminals should not go to prison. Instead they should do unpaid work in the community. To what extent do you agree?
Owing to the great variety of crimes that can be punishable by prison, some people argue that not all criminals are the same and it would therefore be more appropriate to give certain criminals community service instead. I agree that in some cases, prison may not be the best solution and community service would probably have more benefits.
One justification given for prisons is to keep society safe by removing criminals from the outside world. So the first thing to consider is if someone who has broken the law is a danger to other people. In the case of violent crime, there is an argument to keep the perpetrator away from society. However, burglary or possession of drugs, for example, does not involve violence against other people so the criminal does not present a direct danger to anyone in the community. Keeping these types of criminals in prison is expensive for the taxpayer and does not appear to be an effective punishment as they often commit the same crime again when they come out of prison.
Personally, I also believe punishments should reform people so they do not reoffend. A further reason not to put these people in prison is that they may mix with more dangerous and violent criminals, potentially committing a worse crime when they are released. By keeping them in the community, helping others, they not only learn new skills, but they could also develop more empathy and care towards others. If this occurs, society can only benefit.
Critics of this more rehabilitative approach to crime believe that justice should be harsh in order to deter people from committing similar crimes and that community service could be less likely to have that effect. However, there is very little evidence to suggest that long prison sentences deter criminals.
In conclusion, putting criminals who are not a danger to society in prison is expensive and, in my opinion, ineffective, both as a deterrent and as a form of rehabilitation. Community service for non-violent crimes benefits both society and the offender. That said, it would be useful to have more data to work out whether community service or prison is more likely to stop someone reoffending. I strongly believe that decisions on how best to deal with criminals should be based on evidence of what actually works.
