Answer:
Gender inequality.
Explanation:
The marginalization in the patriarchal society in Ghana existed long way back were women considered being unequal to the men. Women in Ghana are exposed to violence by men who use it for dominating women and hold their authority and power over them. The social, cultural, and religious in Ghana allowed men to use beating and other violence towards women which considered to be legal in the country that led to the construction of traditional masculinity. There are distinct gender roles in Ghana society that allows women to marry and keep the home and support children, while men required to earn and provide for their families. Ghana patriarchy shows gender inequality, unequal social values, and roles.
Because there is no science that supports the claim that there are <span>special sunglasses that allow differing amounts of light to the left or right eye and thereby helping to treat mood disorders</span><span>, these special sunglasses demonstrate the principle of </span>extraordinary claims. Extraordinary evidence is required in order this statement to be true and proofed.
Answer:
The U.S. government made reservations the centerpiece of Indian policy around 1850, and thereafter reserves became a major bone of contention between natives and non-natives in the Pacific Northwest. However, they did not define the lives of all Indians. Many natives lived off of reservations, for example. One estimate for 1900 is that more than half of all Puget Sound Indians lived away from reservations. Many of these natives were part of families that included non-Indians and children of mixed parentage, and most worked as laborers in the non-Indian economy. They were joined by Indians who migrated seasonally away from reservations, and also from as far away as British Columbia. As Alexandra Harmon's article "Lines in Sand" makes clear, the boundaries between "Indian" and "non-Indian," and between different native groups, were fluid and difficult to fix. Reservations could not bound all Northwest Indians any more than others kinds of borders and lines could.
In positive punishment contingent removal of an aversive stimulus reduces the likelihood that the response will occur again in the future.
In negative punishment the contingent presentation of a stimulus reduces the likelihood the response will occur again in the future.
<h3>What do positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement have in common with each other?</h3>
- Punishment can be used in a positive or bad way, much like reinforcement.
- Any reinforcer, whether positive or negative, makes a behavioral response more likely.
- Positive or negative punishments both reduce the chance of a behavioral response.
<h3>What is reinforcement and its types?</h3>
- Everything that strengthens or improves a behavior qualifies as reinforcement.
- For instance, in a classroom context, forms of reinforcement may include praise, allowing pupils skip over unneeded assignments, or offering out small rewards like candy, extra downtime, or enjoyable hobbies.
<h3>What is positive and negative reinforcement and punishment?</h3>
- By including something desired, positive reinforcement improves the intended behavior (good).
- Aversive reinforcement reduces the goal behavior in positive punishment (bad).
- By removing an unpleasant stimulus, negative reinforcement makes the intended behavior more frequent.
Learn more about positive and negative reinforcement here:
brainly.com/question/2994390
#SPJ4
