Only Words Essays (867 words) - Anti-pornography Feminism

Only Words Constitutionally protected speech that is Clearly sexual abuse is discriminating and unconstitutional, therefore, must be restricted speech. Catherine A. MacKinnon, in her book "Only Words" gives persuading evidence that pornography subordinates women as a group through sexual abuse. She says "Protecting pornography means protecting sexual abuse as speech, at the same time that both pornography and it's protection have deprived women of speech, especially speech against pornography (MacKinnon, 9). MacKinnon argues this bye explaining defamation and discrimination, racial and sexual harassment, and equality and speech. Women are sexually abused for the making of pornography. Torture, rape, hot wax dripping over nipples, and murdering women are the tools to produce a product of evil. Literature is the description of these crimes against humanity (emphasized) and cameras are proof of these crimes. On the assumption that words have only a referential relation to reality, pornography is defended as only words-even when it is pictures women had to directly used to make, even when the means of writing are women's bodies, even when a women is destroyed in order to say it or show it or because it was said or shown. (MacKinnon, 12) However, assuming words are only a partial relation to reality would mean we would have to reconsider what reality is. Our wedding vows such as "I do" would be meaningless and a jury could never return a verdict that is only partial to reality. These words are "treated as the institutions and practices they constitute, rather than as expressions of the idea they embody" (Mackinnon, 13) Therefore, if these words of pornography are only words, don't they institutionalize rape? Since pornography is rape on women. Pornography is protected by the First Amendment as free speech, but why? Because the pornographic materials are construed as ideas, and the First Amendment protects ideas. Pornography is commonly brushed of as some product of fantasy for those who buy it. But what about the women who were tortured to make it. Also it is brushed off as simulated. This means that the pain and hurt the women are feeling is just acting. Put a little music and a smile here and there to cover up the pain, and you are portraying to and giving pure pleasure for those who buy the product. Just like fantasizing a death, how do you simulate a death? But discarding pornography as a representation is the most frequent excuse. But how can a murder be justified on terms of representation? (MacKinnon, 27,28) . When one fantasizes about murdering another person, this is premeditation of murder. If he were to express this idea, he would be heard as expressing a threat and penalized. For the obvious reason, publications that are "how to" guides on murdering people are not protected speech. I believe Pornography is the catalyst for premeditation of rape. Pornography flicks are "how to" guides for rape. So why are they legal? His idea is protected, and further more is his threat of "I'm gonna *censored* her", because both are seen as fantasy, but why isn't murder seen as fantasy? Murder is the loss of ones life, but so is pornography when women have been killed to produce it. Pornography is proven to be addicted. When somebody is addicted to premeditating rape, it's only a matter of time before his addiction of premeditation becomes a solid plan. Sexual or racial harassment has been suggested to only be made illegal if only directed at an individual and not a group. "The idea seems to be that injury to one person is legally actionalble, but the same injury to thousands of people is protected speech". (MacKinnon, 51) This would be disparate impact which involves "employment practices that are facially neutral in their treatment of different groups, but that, in fact, fall more harshly on one group than another and cannot be justified by business necessity." (Lindgren & Taub,167) Pornography is disparate impact on women, because of the sexual abuse, and ironically the disparate impact seems to be the business necessity. Under Title Seven's disparate impact treatment concept, pornography is illegal. ( I just have to prove it now) Also, is there not reasonable "harm" (Wolgast, 432, Fem Juris) for a women to visit a place where men are watching a porno and premeditating her rape? Is she not infringed on her First Amendment right to congregate with equal respect. The idea of pornography (pre meditated rape) does not allow her respect. It does not allow respect for women as a whole, living among men as a whole, who have

War and Peacemaking

War and Peacemaking Free Online Research Papers Throughout the course of this semester we learned a lot about war and peacemaking in this class. Knowing about wars and peace in the Orthodox Church is very important to any Orthodox Christian. Christ taught us to turn away from evil and evil works of the devil and demons. The church also forbids any clergy member to bare arms and who ever sheds blood even by accident to step down from the clergy position. The church also understands that there must be some form of government like the police and armed forces, which may need to bare arms to protect the people. The words â€Å"An eye for and eye, and a tooth for a tooth† have been used to express retributive justice, which is also known as the Latin law lex talionis, in English means â€Å"the law of retaliation†. The way the law got formed was to make the punishment of the crime be fit to the crime. We have all felt this way about criminals, when ever I hear about child molesters or pedophiles getting arrested I have always said if they had sex with a little boy or girl they should cut off their genitals. I know that this is not Christian like of me at all but the principle of lex talionis has always been around and has been put in to people’s head. For men to live a more Christ like life today they must renounce all evil. Christ teaches us to do so when he gives this sermon to the apostles. Christ lived this way his entire life to show us how to act. If Christ were to become evil and hit one of the soldiers when he was getting whipped or when Christ was getting arrested and one of the men he was with pulled out his sword he said put away your sword, if you live by the sword you will die by the sword. When someone does something evil to another person like punching him or her in the face the person who got hit should not fight back. When they fight back they are becoming more evil. When people fight evil with evil they spread evil, when people use love and peace to fight evil good always wins. If a person responds to evil in anger or self-defense, he becomes attached to the evil and it can dominate him. If everyone lives this way and fought evil with good then this world would be a lot better to live in. Through our prayers and hope this world one day will be peaceful and there will be no more fighting. Sources Wikipedia- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_for_an_eye Research Papers on War and PeacemakingHarry Potter and the Deathly Hallows EssayCapital PunishmentWhere Wild and West MeetUnreasonable Searches and SeizuresAssess the importance of Nationalism 1815-1850 Europe19 Century Society: A Deeply Divided EraQuebec and CanadaThe Effects of Illegal ImmigrationComparison: Letter from Birmingham and CritoTwilight of the UAW

Drivers for adopting public-private construction partnerships in the Term Paper

Drivers for adopting public-private construction partnerships in the US, UK and Australia - Term Paper Example This study also narrows the gap in the literature by collecting primary empirical data from interviews with construction company managers and owners in the US with a view to understanding their perspectives on the drivers for adopting PPPs. The results of this study are discussed and implications for practice and areas for further research are identified. Table of Contents Abstract 2 Introduction 4 Study Scope and Objectives 5 Research Methodology 5 Organization of the Research Report 6 A Review of Literature 6 Conceptualization of Public-Private Construction Partnerships 6 Public-Private Construction Partnerships in the US, UK and Australia 9 Public-Private Construction Partnerships in the US 9 Public-Private Construction Partnerships in the UK 11 Public-Private Construction Partnerships in Australia 13 Summary of Findings in the Literature 14 Empirical Evidence 14 Secondary Data: Australia 14 Secondary Data: The UK 17 Primary Empirical Evidence 19 Analysis 22 Implications for Pract ice 23 Areas for Further Research 23 Bibliography 25 Introduction Public-private partnerships (PPP), also known as P3s are contractual arrangements between governments and private entities/concessionaires for the construction of facilities. Under the P3 contract, the private investor typically funds the construction phase of the facility and is usually entitled to share revenues associated with the facilities (Rowlson, 2012). In addition to sharing revenues, the private entity involved in a PPP also assumes some of the risks associated with the construction project (Hodge, 2004). As a part of a trend toward more privatization of public services, the UK has increasingly adopted PPPs for the construction of government infrastructure (Spackman, 2002). A similar trend can be observed in the US with 23 states legislating for PPPs (Rowlson, 2012). PPPs have also become a part of government public management systems in Australia (English, 2006). Ke, et al. (2009) conducted a review of lite rature on PPPs and examined peer-reviewed articles published between 1998 and 2008. Findings indicate that research into PPPs have steadily increased from 1998 to 2008 revealing an increasing importance to the construction industry. The most popularly researched areas was the â€Å"build-operate-transfer† form of the PPP with some interest in investment conditions, governance and other areas that tend to compliment PPPs (Ke, et al., 2009, p. 1076). It would therefore appear that the drivers of PPPs is under-researched. As, Hodge and Greve (2007) note, although there is intensive interest in the popularity of PPPs, little is understood about these new partnerships in the context of traditional partnerships. Bovaird (2004) argue that although PPPs have become increasingly popular globally over the last 25 years, the definition of PPPs is difficult to conceptualize as it means different things, depending on the country involved and the project to which it applies. Thus further r esearch is necessary for gaining a more profound understanding of PPPs, what the future of PPPs are and how best to model PPPs. This research will therefore add to current knowledge on PPPs by comparing the drivers of PPPs in the UK, the US and Australia. The UK, US and Australia are selected for this study because empirical and