Essay Sample on Flirting and Sexual Harassment in College

Essay Sample on Flirting and Sexual Harassment in College Flirtation is a kind of act that is geared towards giving signs that insinuate desire for intimacy. For instance, it may involve non-verbal expressions and gestures or words. Flirtation is done differently among different cultures. In college for instance, female students are known to flirt through their dressing. They wear extremely short dresses that reveal their thighs. In addition, they feel that when men see the cleavage and other parts, they will be attracted to them. However, sexual harassment refers to coercion into sex and other sexual acts. While flirting is done willingly and often playfully, sexual harassment is often done forcefully. In college for instance, it occurs through rape cases, where female students are raped. At times tough, it may result from flirting. The intention of flirting is not normally sex. Thus, when a woman puts on short cloths, a man may be tempted to have sex, and later force her into it (Golden, R, Peterson, F, Hilgenkamp, K, Harper, J Boskey, 2 010). Gender differences always exist, where men are seen to be more authoritative than women are. Thus, men are more involved in sexual harassment, because they force women into sex. However, women have been observed to flirt more than women do, and thus attract sexual cases such as rape. The position of authority always matters. When two people are dating, for instance, the one in authority will always take the lead. If it is the man, then he may force the woman into certain act including sex. However, when it is a peer, they may both possess authority. In essence, however, the one in authority always dominates and controls sexual acts (Shaw, 2000). Concern about sexual behavior has changed the behavior of individuals. For instance, women avoid walking alone at night for fear of rape. They do not also dress suggestively, as they try to put on longer clothes. However, some people have continued to flirt, increasing chances of rape. For instance, every Friday night in college, I have met women who are drunk and sleeping across the road. This means that they still afford to expose themselves to rape, because they go find get too drunk to find their way to the hostels. Recently a woman discovered she was pregnant but could not remember when she had sex. Later, she connected her situation to a night that she had drunk herself, and when she woke up, she was lying across the road. She only discovered later about the rape. Though she claims she was sexually harassed, I think her dressing also suggested that she needed she was in an unusually short dress, and lay across the road, almost naked and drunk (Greenberg, J, Bruess, C Conklin, 2010). Sexual harassment in college is on the increase as female students continue to expose their bodies by wearing short clothes. It also occurs due to cohabiting, because many partners always stay together. Through this, women are more prone to be harassed sexually by their male partners. For this reason, the college has put up policies that ensure female and male students do not stay together. In case, one is found, disciplinary action is taken. In addition, male students are not allowed into women’s hostels past 7pm. However, incase students are harassed they are advised to inform the security immediately. This allows them to get quick medical attention to avoid cases of pregnancies and other sexually transmitted diseases. Such incidences have been reported many times, though are reducing because of the policies employed (Michigan State University Law, 2008).

50 Million Years of Horse Evolution

50 Million Years of Horse Evolution Apart from a couple of bothersome side branches, horse evolution presents a neat, orderly picture of natural selection in action. The basic storyline goes like this: as the woodlands of North America gave way to grassy plains, the tiny proto-horses of the Eocene epoch (about 50 million years ago) gradually evolved single, large toes on their feet, more sophisticated teeth, larger sizes, and the ability to run at a clip, culminating in the modern horse genus Equus. There are a number of prehistoric horses, including 10 essential prehistoric horses to know. As part of the evolution of horses, you should also know the recently extinct horse breeds. This story has the virtue of being essentially true, with a couple of important ands and buts. But before we embark on this journey, its important to dial back a bit and place horses in their proper position on the evolutionary tree of life. Technically, horses are perissodactyls, that is, ungulates (hoofed mammals) with odd numbers of toes. The other main branch of hoofed mammals, the even-toed artiodactyls, are represented today by pigs, deer, sheep, goats, and cattle, whereas the only other significant perissodactyls beside horses are tapirs and rhinoceroses. What this means is that perissodactyls and artiodactyls (which counted among the mammalian megafauna of prehistoric times) both evolved from a common ancestor, which lived only a few million years after the demise of the dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous period, 65 million years ago. In fact, the earliest perissodactyls (like Eohippus, the earliest identified common ancestor of all horses) looked more like small deer than majestic equines! Hyracotherium and Mesohippus, the Earliest Horses Until an even earlier candidate is found, paleontologists agree that the ultimate ancestor of all modern horses was Eohippus, the dawn horse, a tiny (no more than 50 pounds), deer-like herbivore with four toes on its front feet and three toes on its back feet. The giveaway to Eohippus status  was its posture: this perissodactyl put most of its weight on a single toe of each foot, anticipating later equine developments. Eohippus was closely related to another early ungulate, Palaeotherium, which occupied a distant side branch of the horse evolutionary tree. Five to ten million years after Eohippus/Hyracotherium came Orohippus (mountain horse), Mesohippus (middle horse), and Miohippus (Miocene horse, even though it went extinct long before the Miocene epoch). These perissodactyls were about the size of large dogs and sported slightly longer limbs with enhanced middle toes on each foot. They probably spent most of their time in dense woodlands, but may have ventured out onto the grassy plains for short jaunts. Epihippus, Parahippus, and Merychippus- Moving Toward True Horses During the Miocene epoch, North America saw the evolution of intermediate horses, bigger than Eohippus and its ilk but smaller than the equines that followed. One of the most important of these was Epihippus (marginal horse), which was slightly heavier (possibly weighing a few hundred pounds) and equipped with more robust grinding teeth than its ancestors. As you might have guessed, Epihippus also continued the trend toward enlarged middle toes, and it seems to have been the first prehistoric horse to spend more time feeding in meadows than in forests. Following Epihippus were two more hippi, Parahippus and Merychippus. Parahippus (almost horse) can be considered a next-model Miohippus, slightly bigger than its ancestor and (like Epihippus) sporting long legs, robust teeth, and enlarged middle toes. Merychippus (ruminant horse) was the largest of all these intermediate equines, about the size of a modern horse (1,000 pounds) and blessed with an especially fast gait. At this point, its worth asking the question: what drove the evolution of horses in the fleet, single-toed, long-legged direction? During the Miocene epoch, waves of tasty grass covered the North American plains, a rich source of food for any animal well-adapted enough to graze at leisure and run quickly from predators if necessary. Basically, prehistoric horses evolved to fill this evolutionary niche. Hipparion and Hippidion, the Next Steps Toward Equus Following the success of intermediate horses like Parahippus and Merychippus, the stage was set for the emergence of bigger, more robust, more horsey horses. Chief among these were the similarly named Hipparion (like a horse) and Hippidion (like a pony). Hipparion was the most successful horse of its day, radiating out from its North American habitat (by way of the Siberian land bridge) to Africa and Eurasia. Hipparion was about the size of a modern horse; only a trained eye would have noticed the two vestigial toes surrounding its single hooves. Lesser known than Hipparion, but perhaps more interesting, was Hippidion, one of the few prehistoric horses to have colonized South America (where it persisted until historical times). The donkey-sized Hippidion was distinguished by its prominent nasal bones, a clue that it had a highly developed sense of smell. Hippidion may well turn out to have been a species of Equus, making it more closely related to modern horses than Hipparion was. Speaking of Equus, this genus- which includes modern horses, zebras, and donkeys- evolved in North America during the Pliocene epoch, about four million years ago, and then, like Hipparion, migrated across the land bridge to Eurasia. The last Ice Age saw the extinction of both North and South American horses, which disappeared from both continents by about 10,000 BCE. Ironically, though, Equus continued to flourish on the plains of Eurasia and was reintroduced to the Americas by the European colonizing expeditions of the 15th and 16th centuries CE.

Article review Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words - 1

Review - Article Example ) â€Å"The goals of SOX were to enhance the transparency of financial information, reaffirm auditor independence, and define corporate governance – the responsibilities of corporate boards and audit committees†. The author has pointed out the advantages of Sarbanes act on the economy and young generation, as many of them are indulging in educating themselves on the aspects of this new law. However, one fact that distracts the reader is that, paragraphs are divided in to real small units. Moreover it can be realized that, the third paragraph is slightly complicated, which can turn the readers perplexed and confused. Many a times, readers can be of ordinary category and they can find theses sentences overwhelming or distracting. On the other hand, the best part is that, the third paragraph gives out statistical fact and figure by mentioning historical evidence on the financial security acts. In the third paragraph, there is also statement about the merits of the Sarbanes Act on the financial and investment sector Further, more proceeding into the later paragraph, it can be understood that the writer is projecting on the quality of PCAOB (Public Companies Accounting Oversight Board) in giving organizations an opportunity in securing their investment and financial transaction processes. It is stated in the article that, PCAOB will establish quality control in auditing, maintain ethical independence and standards in a registered public accounting firms. Moreover, the authenticating nature of PCAOB is revealed in the article, where in it shows how the accounting firms, media and press consider the above listed act. Another highlight of the PCAOB is detailed as its ability to give employment opportunity to people in information technology field. According to (Rosavich)â€Å" Documenting internal control involved a thorough review of systems and also meant additional employment opportunities for information technology professionals†. The writer had presented the

Research Proposal Research Proposal Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Research Proposal Example In the wake of these corporate failures, basic principles and rules are being reviewed and strengthened in order to reinstall investor confidence. At the heart of these corporate governance reforms is the common interest in the effectiveness of boards of directors. Corporate governance codes, experts and activists have long advocated changes in the board structure. As a result of the successful implementation of corporate practice codes in the private sector corporations, the government has decided to implement the system in public/civil departments and government offices. The public offices are supposed to benefit the people who pay tax to the government on various assets and income earned by them. The government departments should exhibit transparency, and accountability to the various stakeholders including general public. These departments have a key role in a society where people's money is handled by government departments when they left with excess income allowed by tax author ity. In this context, the present study s an attempt to examine the impact of corporate government practices implemented by revenue commission in the UK on the customers'/ tax payers' satisfaction. Corporate governance is a conscious and sustained effort on the part of a corporate entity to strike a judicious balance between its own interest and that of its stakeholders. It is the relationship among various participants in determining the direction and performance of corporations. It is not merely enacting legislation; but instilling an environment of trust and confidence as ethical business behavior and fairness cannot be legislated. It aims at minimizing the chances of corruption, malpractices, financial frauds, and misconduct of management. It provides various codes and regulations to establish effective governance system and to monitor the performance of corporations in the context of transparency, advocacy, accountability and social contribution to the society. Governance is not just a pious platitude. It is the accumulated outcome of inspiration, influence, wisdom, guidance and control, which keeps a body or an organization not only moving but also moving on the right tr ack and at the right speed. It is inherent in the very nature of cosmic as well as human systems. However, corporate governance is essentially a state of mind and a set of principles based on relationships. It can work only if the people entrusted with these responsibilities believe in and are committed to the principles that underline effective corporate governance, which in ultimate analysis, is a way of life and not a mere compliance with a set of rules. Ideals of corporate governance primarily need transparency, full disclosure, fairness to all stakeholders and effective monitoring of the state of corporate affairs. It is, thus, concerned with values, vision, and visibility. Sound corporate governance practices lead to greater management accountability, credibility, and enhanced public confidence. Statement of the Problem With the corporate scandals in the early 2000, corporations across the world are under pressure to convince and ensure that the various stakeholders are happy with the system of corporate governance. Many new standards/policies of Corporate Governance (CG) and changes in accounting and reporting

Gun Control Persuasive Paper Essay Example for Free

Gun Control Persuasive Paper Essay A gun control law is any law that restricts the use, purchase, or possession of any firearms (Conservapedia). These laws are implemented to reduce the use of firearms to authorized members of a state’s government. Each state in America has its own laws regarding gun control; however, among all, California has the strongest laws, scoring 81 out of a 100 (O’Mara). Gun control laws are necessary in a state because they decrease violence, increase government’s protection in the state, and decrease the lethalness of other crimes. Gun control laws can reduce violence and crime. In the United States, 67% of crimes in 2010 were committed with firearms (Rogers, 2007). This means that majority of crimes committed in America had guns and other firearms involved. If firearms are prohibited in the state, then in theory, crime rates will go down by 67%. Guns have the ability to take someone’s life. Having that said, disallowing the use of guns can not only decrease crime rates, but lower causalities as well. Ozanne-Smith et al (2004) arrived at a similar conclusion in a study conducted in Victoria, Australia after examining the trend in the firearm-related deaths in the context of strong legislative reform. They found the following: â€Å"Significant and dramatic declines in rates of firearm related deaths occurred in Victoria and Australia after periods of strong legislative reform. Statistically significant reductions in firearm related suicides were observed after legislative reforms. In 2000, rates of firearm related deaths were less than two per 100 000 population for Victoria and Australia compared with 10.4 per 100 000 population for the United States. In Victoria, reductions in the numbers of registered firearms of 25% and of licensed shooters of 15% were seen over the four years between 1997–98 and 2000–01† (Ozanne-Smith, 2004). Prohibiting civilians from using guns can increase the effectiveness of the police in one’s state. When a person owns a gun, in theory he can protect himself and therefore does not need protection from the police. Thus, he becomes independent. However, if a person is not allowed to own a gun, he becomes more dependent upon the government for his safety and the police and the government now becomes more aware of the importance of their task in protecting their state. Lastly, the restriction of firearms can decrease the lethalness of crimes other than murder and homicide. Often times, minor criminals like thieves and robbers commit their crimes with a firearm, when in reality; the commission of their crime does not require it. They simply use the guns for self-defense. As a result, they are more likely to kill their victims rather than just stealing from them. Therefore, they not only steal, but they kill as well. The prohibition of firearms can lessen a criminal’s ability from committing another crime by decreasing the probability of murder and homicide. However, firearms have its benefits as well. But if the aforementioned is not used in the right way, it will lead to serious consequences: including death. That’s why gun control laws are implied in a state: to regulate and prevent the misuse of such firearms.

Conversations of Thought :: Conversating Thinking thoughts Essays

Conversations of Thought There are written and read conversations taking place this very moment. The written conversation is one that happens between me (ongoing thought- conversation) and what is written onto paper. The read conversation takes place when a person, other than me, picks up what I’ve written and reads it. Thought-conversation is going on in my writing to you today; there are some going on in collegiate assembly halls, and in the conscious minds of many. However, I cannot—nor can you at the moment—read (make believe you’re not reading this right now---oops, I’ve just Ong’ed you) or hear most of these arguments, debates, agreements, disagreements, assertions that carry on. If that is true we are fine for the moment. Granted, one is standing adjacent to and overhearing an English seminar that is discussing and synthesizing the views and works of a range of the most influential modern theorists of the humanities and social sciences. This confined seminar ( audience) is expected to interact with, value, debate, and/ or construct opinions for or against a text—thus leading some to new thought-conversational thought processes. This, however, excludes the standby-audience member, the reader-listener, as an active participant of the dominant- authoritative discourse from that seminar. Hence, the author’s (the professor) methodology creates a specific, yet unrestrained, â€Å"aimed-towards them† discourse and not for the standby reader-listener. â€Å"His† audience (who says that an audience is his anyway?) will have to later â€Å"write†, â€Å"talk† and â€Å"think† about texts. This notion does not stand alone—paradoxically speaking of the standby reader-listener who is standing alone and adjacent to the seminar. These â€Å"standby† reader-listeners aren’t â€Å"intentionally† or even, in this case, â€Å"fictionally† given the right to speak in this confined pre-registered, fore-planned discourse. Likewise, they aren’t fictionally thought of as potential readers. With this analogy, I find confluence in central arguments made by Ong, Bartholomae and Foucault that are worth mentioning. I am not disputing the rhetoric of these three great thinkers/ readers. I am simply attempting to â€Å"define a position of privilege, a position that sets [me] against a ‘common’ discourse†¦Ã¢â‚¬  working â€Å"self-consciously, critically, against not only the ‘common’ code but [my] own† (Bartholomae 644). However, for now, I am suggesting that a reader doesn’t â€Å"have to play the role in which the author has cast him† (Ong 60), but that there is more to it.

Deontological Ethics and Emanuel Kant Essay

Describe Kant’s theory of Duty as the basis of morality (33 marks). Emanuel Kant was a German Philosopher who lived in the late 18th century and was arguably one of the greatest thinkers of all time. He came up with a guide to morals in direct opposition to teontological or consequential theories. Many people use his ethics as a guide to living a moral life, but what exactly is Kant’s ethics? How did he believe we should face moral problems and how can we apply it in our every day lives? Instead of situation based theories his theory was deontological ethics. This is a very absolute and objective form of ethics, which has been worked out using a rational thinking process. Kant believed that an ethical theory should be universalisable to be morally correct. This means it must be able to be applied to everyone all over the world regardless of situations or circumstances. Kant believed for this to be possible it must contain something that was ‘unconditionally and universally good’. This must me something that is ‘intrinsically good’ which is good in itself, the highest good ‘without qualification’. This thing that determines the moral worth of our actions cannot be instrumentally good, something that only becomes good pending the results of the action or like some things such as happiness, which are possible of making a situation morally worse. Kant believed that there was only one thing that is the right thing for us to do in any situation to make us morally correct. He said that ‘a morally good man is a man of good will’. Kant said that it was ‘impossible to conceive anything in the world as good without qualification, except good will’. For something to be of good will, it is not dependent on the goodness of what it effects or accomplishes. If it were, then it could not be considered to be of unconditional value and intrinsic goodness for it would become a ‘means to an end not an end in itself’. This leads us to therefore conclude that the consequences of any moral action are irrelevant. Kant describes the most important thing as being ‘not what the act accomplishes but the motive behind the act’ (Moral Problems – M Palmer). However we may ask what exactly is the right motive to have? Kant simply states that ‘ a good wills only motive is to act for the sake of duty’. For an act to be universally, intrinsically good in itself, it must not be done because of its consequences, nor from self-interest, fear or as a means to an end, rather only because it is our soul duty to do it. We should always act for duties sake simply because it is the right thing to do. We need to be very clear as to what this specifically entails. Kant is saying that we can not do a moral act because of self-interest. This is understandable because if we are doing it merely because we get something good out of it i.e. a reward or a good name then we are not doing it because we simply know it is the right thing to do. However we also need to be aware that this also includes the idea that we can not do a moral act because it comes naturally to us. We cannot do it because we derive pleasure or enjoyment from doing something we know is right or because we will feel good about ourselves if we help other people. This is because we are doing it indirectly for self-pleasure and this again is wrong, it does not include the presence of good will. Even if duty does coincides with what we naturally do, it does not make the act intrinsically good because we are doing it for another reason besides doing it because we know it is our duty to do so. The fact that we happen to be doing what duty prescribes is just luck. It is wrong because the moment anything that duty says we should do becomes something we no longer enjoy, we won’t do it. We cannot be for example honest as long as it pleases us to do so. Kant therefore concludes that ‘this will fails to be good will, just as if they had acted from self-interest. So far Kant has told us that a morally good person is a ‘man of good will’ and that a man of good will is one that follows where his duty lies. This is done for the very reason that it is the right thing to do and we have a responsibility to do it. It does not come from self-interest, calculating consequences, looking at specific circumstances or from pleasure out of doing something for someone else. However we still need to know ‘where our duty lies’ and what it is exactly that we are supposed to do to become man of good will who does what duty foretells him to do. We can be sure however that because it is a deontological argument, that we have an absolute principle to follow that does not look at consequences of particular actions or changes in certain situations. It is absolute and definite and we can be sure that there are no exceptions to the rule. We also know that it has to be universably applicable ‘to everyone irrespective of their situation’ (M Palmer – Moral Problems). It therefore must contain something that all humans have in common so we can all know where our duty lies in different situations and Kant believed that this was Reason or rationality. He said that humans are rational beings, we are all capable of resolving problems using reason. We all have an innate intellectual power that we are born with which we can use to work out rationally where our duty lies. Kant believed that it was unacceptable to look at consequences of a particular action and then decide if we should do it or not because there is not enough evidence for us to make a proper decision from. Rather we need to look at the actual experience of moral obligation and this is the feeling of what we think we ‘ought to do’. Following what our duty prescribes involves the idea that what we feel we ‘ought’ to do is what is right. We should all have a feeling of moral obligation; we all know the good and right thing to do so therefore we should do it. Therefore our duty becomes to obey our rational thinking which prescribes what the morally correct thing we ought to do is. However, we still have not established what the ‘supreme principle of morality is’. This one rule that we all must follow as a means to our rational thinking is something which Kant calls the categorical imperative. By imperative we mean something that tells us what actions would be good in the form of a command, usually using the words ‘I ought’. A categorical imperative therefore is an act that is solely good in itself or intrinsically good. The act is done because of the very ‘nature’ of the act itself and not to achieve something else as a means to it. It is done only ‘for its own sake’ and is free from ulterior beneficial motives. On the other hand we have hypothetical imperatives as an opposite. These acts are done because of a desire to achieve something else. For example if I exercise more I will become fitter. It tells us what acts are good as a means to something else. Palmer uses the example of telling the truth to illustrate the difference between the two. A categorical imperative would be ‘tell the truth’ because it is good in itself and always is the right thing to do. The hypothetical imperative would be ‘if you want to be trusted, tell the truth’ because we are gaining something for ourselves by doing the right thing i.e. we are trusted. Once we know the distinctive feature of the principle of morality, we can analyse it more deeply so we can specifically know exactly what it is that defines a moral act as being good. Kant said that a morally good act had intrinsic value. This is where something is good and valuable in itself. The very nature of them makes them valuable regardless of anything else. For example Kant believed that Humans were of intrinsic value and therefore should be treated as an ‘end in themselves’. The opposite to this is therefore is instrumental valuable which is when something is good only because of what it can achieve and therefore is treated as a ‘means to an end’. Kant said this is not how we should treat other human’s i.e. to use them to gain something for ourselves. He is saying that all humans should be treated equally and the same, we should treat everyone as we would treat ourselves. So for example, racism would always be wrong in the eyes of Kant. This links to the Christian idea of the Golden rule to ‘love thy neighbour as thyself’ which Jesus, the ultimate example of human goodness, instructed his people to follow. The final and key feature that Kant placed emphasis on when concerning the categorical imperative was the acts ability to be universalisable. A key quote he used was ‘ I ought never to act in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law’. By this he is implying a method we can use to see exactly what laws are good because they have ‘moral worth’. Kant stated that if the law can be applied to everyone in the world without being contradicted then it is good. For example we can universalise the maxim ‘do not murder’ to all of society regardless of any situation without there being contradictions. By contradiction, Kant means one of two things, Contradiction in the Will or Nature. If we cannot universalise an act because of either one of these contradictions then we must conclude that it is morally wrong. By contradiction in the law of nature, Kant is referring to rules that cannot be applied because they are ‘straightforwardly self contradictory’ – (M Palmer – Moral Problems). The maxim or rule can not be applied universally because it contradicts the laws of nature meaning it physically is impossible to do. For example the maxim ‘never speak until you are spoken to first’ is not possible to keep because if everyone applied it then no one would talk at all because we would always be waiting to be spoken to. From this we can see that following this maxim would not be the good thing to do. The Contradiction in the will is not when something contridicts itself, rather a maxim that the person involved ‘could not possibly want to see universalised’ (Palmer). We may find that if it was applied universally we could be in the situation where we would not want everyone to apply it because it would help us if they didn’t. For example the maxim ‘do not give money to the poor’ because we may find ourselves one day, through no fault of our own, poor and homeless and then we would want people to give money to us to help us survive. Kant gave one simple rule to following universalisabiltiy and this was ‘ Act only on a maxim through which you can at the same time will that it be a universal law’. With this he prescribed a formula which we can all follow to see if a maxim is universalisable. Before acting we have to ask what rule we would be following if we carried out this act and this is the maxim. Then we are to ask ourselves if it was possible and would we would be willing for it to be followed by everyone at all times in all places. If it cannot then it is a contradiction in either the law of nature or in the will. Then quite simply, if it can be universalised do it, if not then don’t. In conclusion we can see that to follow Kants deontological ethics we must ‘act solely in accordance to duty and for the sake of duty only’ (Palmer – Moral Problems). It has been a very popular theory, which many people follow, sometimes without being aware of it. However we do need to ask is it of practical use in out lives today? Can we honestly say that it is useful, practical and realistic when making moral decisions? In my next section I shall be looking at these questions in a little more depth to see if we can logically come up with an answer.