Mutilation Of Women :: essays research papers

The number of mutilated woman and girls in Africa and the Middle East is increasing due to population growth, according to Win News. But internationally financed population, health and safe motherhood programs ignore Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and have failed to implement effective preventive education. Education should be provided to the woman and men in the participating countries so the risks of this mutilation can be understood fully. FGM is painful, dangerous, and disrespectful to the woman/child and her body and I belive evry woman has the right to education to help make this critical decision. The mutilation most often performed is Clitoridectomy or Excision- cutting off without anesthetic, the clitoris and most of the external genitalia. This is practiced in a broad area from the Red Sea to the Atlantic Coast. The most dangerous operation, Infibulation is customary in Sudan, Somalia, N.Kenya,, W. Africa and all along the Red Sea coast. After the clitoris is excised and all external genitalia are carved away, the bleeding raw edges of the libia majora are held together by thorns or other fasting devices, until a scar forms to close the entrance to the vagina. The legs of the little girl are tied together for several weeks until the wound heals; a tiny opening is created by inserting a splinter of wood to allow urination. Thus virginity, which is considered especially important by Moslem men, can be proven. These dangerous operations result in permanent damage: hemorrhage and shock, which may be fatal; many infections including tetanus, scaring which obstructs normal childbirth and may result in the death of both mother and child; infertility due to infection. And that's not all, FGM causes urinary and menstrual problems, frigidity, painful intercourse, and many, many needless deaths. The highest childbirth mortality is recorded in areas where FGM is practiced. Some may argue that this is their culture, we cannot judge, or interfere, and I agree. I do not feel that these are bad people, and I do not think we should outlaw this practice.

Civil Engineering Administration Essay

Engineering Administration Introduction A NZ property developer â€Å"PROFIT† proposed to develop an office building in Beijing, The Republic of China. This requires the use of FIDIC Conditions of Contracts for Construction (i. e. the 1999 Red Book) which is different in the dispute resolution mechanisms compare to the local NZS 3910:2003 Conditions of Contract. Objective The first objective of this report is to compare the difference in the dispute resolution mechanisms between the 1999 Red Book and the NZS 3910:2003 Conditions of Contract. The second objective is to give critical comments to the dispute resolution mechanisms in these 2 standards. Tables and flow charts Discussion There are many differences in the dispute resolution mechanisms between the 1999 Red Book and the NZS 3910:2003 Condition of Contracts. Figure 1 and Figure 2 shows the flow of structure for dispute in both 1999 Red Book and NZS 3910:2003. The figures show that the general flow path between the two acts is similar. For both acts, the engineer that is responsible for the contract is always the first person (party) to be referred to. If the engineer cannot solve the dispute, both acts recommend a method of dispute resolution (by a neutral third party) before referring to arbitration. Arbitration is the last method of dispute resolution that can be used for both acts, the decision from arbitration is call an award and binding and enforceable to both the clients and the contractors. There are 5 major differences between 1999 Red Book and NZS 3910:2003. The differences are listed on table 1. The first difference is the difference in engineer’s position and engineer’s response. In the 1999 Red Book, the engineer is an employee of the client. The response of the engineer can be regard as the response of the client to the contractor (Cl 20. 1). In the NZS 3910:2003, the engineer is a third neutral party responsible for the contract. The decision of the engineer is final and binding on when both the client and the contractor are satisfied. There is also another small difference that the engineer can do while making engineer’s review between the two acts. It can make a connection with an agreed expert to make recommendations to assist to resolve the dispute with the consent of the client and the contractor. This is similar to adjudication, but with the involvement of the engineer. The second difference is the difference in obligation of the engineer to give it decision to the dispute. In 1999 Red Book, the engineer must give it response to the contractor within 42 days after receiving the claim to obey the law. In the NZS3910:2003, the engineer is expect to give a response to the dispute in 20 working days. However, the engineer may choose to not give any decision within the time limit which is not against the law. In this case, the client and the contractor could refer to other adjudication process to resolve the dispute. The third difference is the difference in the recommended method of dispute resolution to take before referring to arbitration. The 1999 Red Book recommend to referred to dispute adjudication board. The NZS3910:2003 recommend to referring to a mediator. The dispute adjudication board is panel of experienced and expertised reviewer which is organised before the construction begins and meets at the job site periodically. There, the reviewer in the dispute adjudication board is familiar with the job procedure and progress. The mediator is an independent neutral third party which acts as the case manager and the facilitator of the dispute. The mediator does not have to be expertise and it does not have previous relationship with the contract before the mediation undertaken. The fourth difference is that in there is an extra obligated process which is required to be undertaken in the 1999 Red Book but not in the NZS 3910:2003. Clause 20. 5 in the 1999 Red Book indicates that before commencement of arbitration, both parties shall attempt to settle the dispute amicable. In the NZS 3910:2003 There is no similar regulations. The fifth difference is the difference between the restriction dates for all the steps in the dispute resolution procedure in figure 1 and figure 2. The 1999 Red Book has specified clearly the restriction time. The NZS3910:2003 use working days and sometimes months in it regulations. For example, the restriction on the submission date for contractors’ claim is within 28 days in 1999 Red Book after he became or should have become aware of the event;the restriction date of the same situation in NZS 3910:2003 is 1 month. Obviously, the clear number of days used in the 1999 Red Book is more formal and precise than the use of month in the NZS 3910:2003. In some other step, the NZS 3910:2003 sometimes use working days. For example, the engineer review shall give a formal decision within 20 working days (clause 13. 2. 4). The use of working days is

African American: an Identity Crisis Essay

For centuries African Americans have been indoctrinated to subsist in a cultural and historical vacuum by their oppressors who would seek to bar them from ever making the connection to their illuminating past. This systematic agenda of mis-education and lies by omission has made possible the subjugation and enslavement, in body and mind, of the African American by his oppressors. In his essay â€Å"The Study of the Negro,† Dr. Carter G. Woodson sets out to ruminate on why the African American has been misled in his ascension to human equality and dignity and how he can remedy the dismal state of his affairs. A thorough reading of Woodson’s pioneering work indicates that we should study the experiences of African-descended people to gain knowledge about ourselves and other cultures as well as to take back accurate traditions and histories that have all but been discredited or misrepresented. Furthermore, only through this systematic study of their meaningful contributions to history can African Americans elevate themselves to empowered enlightenment. One reason to study the experiences of the African American is to instill in him a sense of purpose and place in a world that otherwise intends to keep him perpetually in the dark. Undoubtedly the aim of his oppressors has been to convince him that his history is unimportant so as to deprive him of the sense of pride that is so necessary to feel wholly human. By espousing that â€Å"he has no worthwile past, that his race has done nothing significant since the beginning of time, and that there is no evidence that he will ever achieve anything great† (Woodson 6), his oppressors can be sure that the African American will continue down the path of mis-education that so allows for his subservience to a system that cares nothing for him. However, â€Å"if you teach the Negro that he has accomplished as much good as any other race he will aspire to equality and justice without regard to race. † (Woodson 6) The core purpose of African American studies is to take back from obscurity that piece of the historical puzzle without which the African American would be amidst an endless identity crisis. By studying the origin of his people, the African American, who â€Å"has not yet learned to think and plan for himself as others do for themselves† (Woodson 7), can take control of his own destiny rather than taking as truth â€Å"an abundance of information which others have made accessible to the oppressed. † (Woodson 7). The culture of indoctrination cultivated by the oppressor would have that â€Å"the Negro should cease to remember that he was once held a slave, that he has been oppressed, and even that he is a Negro. † (Woodson 7) Thus, it is plain to see that the African American’s oppressors have too much to lose by promoting the truth. Indeed, it would require them to admit their transgressions and to concede the countless meaningful contributions made by the African American to modern society. Without â€Å"a serious examination of the fundamentals of education, religion, literature, and philosophy as they have been expounded to him† (Woodson 7) by his oppressors, the â€Å"Negro joins the opposition with the objection that the study of the Negro keeps alive questions which should be forgotten. † (Woodson 7) Perhaps the most essential lesson to be learned from an effective, systematic study of African American history is that the contributions made by African Americans are far more numerous than any oppressor could ever know. It is with a pig-headed pride that they conceal the fact that â€Å"the history of the modern world was made, in the main, by what was taken from African people. † (Clarke) Without knowledge such as this, it would be impossible for the African American to take pride in himself and to seek the true identity he has been in search of for centuries. â€Å"A race is like a man. Until it uses its own talents, takes pride in its own history, and loves its own memories, it can never fulfill itself completely. † (Clarke) African American studies can help in understanding other cultures as well as our own by challenging and correcting the misrepresentations of Africa and Western Europe and their cultural legacies. What has been laid aground as history by the oppressor does not serve to benefit the African American but instead to keep him dependent on a system rife with underlying prejudice against his people. History is written in the image of the writer so, consequently, the African American must take up the reins of authorship himself and guide his own destiny. That is precisely why we should study the African American experience, to produce a platform on which he can take back what is innately his. After all, to be cognizant of where one is going, it is necessary to be aware of where one has been.