Let me say that too often adolescent girls face intersecting disadvantages because of their age, gender, ethnic background, sexual identity, religion affiliation, income, disability among other compounded factors. We have seen pictures, evoked images of girls in different situations that live with disadvantage, even without crisis. The perception and reality of vulnerability arising out of these multiple intersectionalities really creates that context of discrimination and differentiated impact of crisis.
During conflict or humanitarian situations, natural disasters or climate change, these factors exacerbate and disproportionately and differentially affect young women and girls due to neglect of their human rights and the intersecting forms gender-inequality and discrimination that they endure. So this is how we shine the light on this particular situation of girls in emergencies. As was mentioned, it is often forgotten that women and girls are not only helpless victims, they are sources of power, power to cope, power to prevent, power to reduce risk, power for resilience and transformation and to build back better after crisis. That is the power that we want to invoke and tap into.
We must be outraged about the disadvantages that girls still experience. But here has been some progress. Humanitarian actors and governments are much more aware today about addressing crises and resilience building with a gender lens and with a girls lens. But, we still have miles to go.
Imagine that to date, women and children account for more than 75 per cent of the refugees and displaced persons at risk from war, famine, persecution and natural disasters.
Every 10 minutes, somewhere in the world, an adolescent girl dies because of violence.
Up to one-third of adolescent girls report their first sexual experience as being forced and they are victims of sexual violence. Currently at least 133 million girls and women have experienced female genital mutilation.
Good example of appeasement being used is the Munich Conference (1938), and the Potsdam Conference (1945). Many see appeasement as surrendering to another country’s wishes, which can make a nation and its leader look weak. It’s a temporary measure taken to stop a war, but many times is unsuccessful in the long run. Leaders such as Neville Chamberlain and FDR used this strategy with Hitler and Stalin, who both took advantage of what they had been given. Appeasement can put a country in a weak position due to them losing territory, resources, etc. It’s a very diplomatic policy, but usually only curbs a threat for a short time. Hope this helped a little! :)
Answer:
How did the U.S. Supreme Court decide?
Explanation:
The U.S. Supreme Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) does not permit courts to invalidate a contractual waiver of legal rights based solely on the grounds that a plaintiff's dispute resolution costs exceed any potential amounts to be recovered.
