Answer:
It takes into account people's overlapping identities and experiences to understand the complexity of the prejudices they face.
In other words, the affirmative intersectional theory that people are often disadvantaged by multiple sources of oppression: their race, class, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, and other markers of identity. Intersectionality recognizes that identity markers (eg, "feminine" and "black") do not exist identified by each other, and each of the information to the others, often creating a complex convergence of oppression.
Explanation:
Today, intersectionality is considered crucial for social equity work. Activists and community organizations are asking for and participating in more dynamic conversations about differences in experience between people with different overlapping identities. Without an intersectional lens, events and movements that aim to address injustice toward one group can end up perpetuating systems of inequities towards other groups. Intersectionality fully informs YW Boston's work, by encouraging nuanced conversations about inequality in Boston. It illuminates us about health disparities among women of color, provides avenues for our youth leaders to understand identity, and is crucial to the advocacy work we support.
Answer:
Explanation: “That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Answer: Trust
Explanation:
Social trust is the feeling in which a person or party tends to depend on other person or party in a society.Trust displays reliability and honesty persisted by the parties which makes parties believe on each other for their relationship and bonding.
According to the question,Kendra is experiencing social trust as Oxycontin level is increasing in her body.Thus, bonding is being infused in her mind with classmates while studying togather as she is trusting the other classmates.
<u>Explanation:</u>
Political analysts believe in most cases political parties often make inquiries about nominated justices' political attitude towards a particular subject, usually a controversial one.
Their goal is to determine whether the nominee is in support of, or is in opposition to the subject. Hence, it is this series of inquiries that constitutes the "litmus test".
