If you choose to say "Yes, men and women are two sides of a coin," you can justify by stating men and women are complementary in what they offer to society.
<h3>Men vs. Women</h3>
This question requires a personal answer, which is why we will only provide an example and tips here. Suppose you choose to say "Yes, men and women are two sides of a coin." You can justify that opinion by explaining how complementary men and women are in what they offer to society.
For example, you can explain that men and women obviously share traits and qualities, but that in general men develop a more competitive side. Therefore, a society more dominated by men could be characterized by a culture of competition, of achievement over happiness.
On the other hand, a culture more dominated by women could value collectiveness. Rather than competition, others could be perceived as partners, companions on the same journey.
Since both men and women are included in our society, even if not in a way that is completely equal, they can offer those different traits so as to balance society, culture, and lifestyle.
Learn more about men and women here:
brainly.com/question/11544050
#SPJ1
The answer is: Role Strain
Example of this would be when a supervisor of a company is dating her co- workers.
In such situation, she has two different roles. One is as a boss that has to be strict and have a set of expectation that must be fulfilled by employees. On the other hand, she is also a girlfriend that has to give a full support to his loved one.
When her boyfriend make a mistake in the office, it could create a confusion for her since she's unsure which role she need to assume to deal with it.
Answer: be irrelevant to the justice or injustice of capital punishment.
Explanation:
From the information given, Banks was charged with murder but his lawyer failed to vigorously cross-examine an informant testifying against Banks or to investigate the case.
Based on the above, since Banks may not have received a fair trial because of poor representation, then a retentionist would argue that the injustice in the conduct of the trial would be irrelevant to the justice or injustice of capital punishment.
District of Columbia's gun control laws were the subject of a 2008 supreme court decision that ruled for an individual right to possess a firearm for lawful purposes.
What is the District of Columbia v. Heller case?
In the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 26, 2008, by a vote of 5 to 4, that the Second Amendment guarantees a person's right to own firearms without having to participate in a state militia and to use firearms for conventionally legal purposes, such as self-defense inside the home. The Second Amendment's interpretation was examined in this case for the first time since the United
The case known as District of Columbia v. Heller was first brought in 2003 in the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. In Parker v. District of Columbia, six residents of the federal District of Columbia asked the court to block the implementation of three provisions of the district's Firearms Control Regulation Act (1975), which generally forbade the registration of handguns, forbade the carrying of unlicensed handguns or any other "deadly or dangerous" weapon that could be concealed, and demanded that legally stored firearms be disassembled or locked to prevent firing.
Know more about USA gun rights
brainly.com/question/3563382
#SPJ4
Mortgage rates
Fiscal policy refers to changes in government spending and taxation designed to affect aggregate expenditure. As Social Security, unemployment benefits, and corporate taxes all impact overall spending, they can be utilized as part of fiscal policy. Monetary policy refers to actions by the central bank to manipulate the money supply and thereby control interest rates. Mortgage rates is that’s affected by monetary policy, not fiscal policy.
