1600 word Position Paper on this question- “Is the Australian government dealing effectively with the economic implications of the covid 19 pandemic.”
Position Paper assignment help · 1600-word position paper on this question “Is the Australian government dealing effectively with the economic implications of the covid 19 pandemic.” · You are agreeing with this question but you must also talk about the negative impacts of the government when dealing with the covid 19 pandemic, your main point is agreeing with this question, but you must also talk about the negatives and show that the positives outweigh the negatives. · 12-15 Scholarly resources, Harvard in-text referencing and reference list. · Must follow the format on the position paper that I will be sending to you and also take a look at this format underneath. 1. An introduction · . Identification of the issue (background information) . Statement of your position (main thesis statement) 2. The body · . A discussion of both sides of the issue (summary and limitations) . Reasons why you position is stronger . Supporting evidence or facts 3. A conclusion · . Suggested courses of action . Possible solutions ePortfolio text widget [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] ; ; ; ePortfolio text widget poorly developed. ; ; ; ; ; ; ePotrfolio text widget developed satisfactorily. paper ; ; ; ; ePortfolio text widget showing more than satisfactory quality of work ; ; ; Very well developed ePortfolio text widget ; Excellently developed text widget. Microsoft Word - Example_Position_Paper.docx TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Identification of the Issue Pg. 1 Main Thesis Statement Pg. 1 Body Counter Views – Summary Pg. 2 Counter Views – Limitations Pg. 3 Thesis Argument Pg. 4 Conclusion Summary & Recommendations Pg. 6 References Pg. 7 INTRODUCTION Identification of the Issue Domestic violence refers to acts of violence that occur within intimate relationships and take place in domestic settings (AIC: 2009). It includes physical and sexual assault, intimidation, threats, psychological and emotional abuse, social isolation and economic deprivation (Bugeja et. al: 2013). Domestic violence intersects class, age, ability, location, culture and religion (VicHealth: 2014). It is predicated upon inequitable relationship dynamics in which one person exerts power and coercive control over another (Bugeja et. al: 2013) and whereby violence is most commonly perpetrated by a male against a female partner. According to the ABS (2006), approximately one in three Australian women have experienced physical violence committed by a current or former male partner, and almost one in five have experienced some form of sexual violence. Between 2013 and 2014, there were 31,621 reports of domestic violence in NSW of which 69% of victims were women (Women in NSW: 2014). Of equal gravity, statistics published by White Ribbon (2014) indicate that during the same period one woman was killed every week as a result of intimate partner violence. However, the consequences of domestic violence are more complex than these statistics suggest. Within Australia, domestic violence is the largest contributor to the homelessness of women and children, it is the single biggest health risk for females aged between 15 – 44 and distinct from physical injury, it has severe impacts on emotional wellbeing with more women likely to increase behaviours associated with self-harm and substance abuse (AIC: 2009). The coup de grace; 17% of Australians consider domestic violence a “private” matter (VicHealth: 2014), one in five believe there are circumstances in which women bear some responsibility for violence (VicHealth: 2014), and only 36% of victims actually report personal incidences of domestic violence to police (AIC: 2009). Main Thesis Statement Motives and justifications for domestic violence are complex, multifaceted and contradictory. Contemporary explanations of domestic violence conclude that it is an attempt to assert domination and control over women as a result of male inadequacies (James et. al: 2002), it is shaped by sexist and traditional gender roles (Hunnicutt: 2014), is supported through peer culture, media and pornography (Flood & Fergus: 2008) and is more likely to occur where negative attitudes towards women are upheld and legitimised by gender inequality (AIC: 2009). Two key sociological theories emerge in this debate; feminist theories which place gender, masculinity and patriarchal domination at the centre of domestic violence, and family violence theories which regard partner violence as just one aspect of a larger issue (Lawson: 2012). However, this paper will advocate that gender is crucial in understanding and resolving the significant social issue of domestic violence. “Men’s violence against women is not just a women’s issue, it’s a social issue, it’s a men’s issue” (White Ribbon: 2014), it requires community leaders, decision makers and effective social policy in addressing gender inequity and reducing the prevalence of domestic violence in Australia. Ultimately, men are both part of the problem and part of the solution (Flood: 2002). It is men that can most effectively challenge the attitudes and behaviours of their peers who use or condone violence against women (White Ribbon: 2014). Whilst it is acknowledged that domestic violence is experienced within GLBTI relationships, the scope of this paper is limited to domestic violence within a heterosexual context. BODY Counter Views - Summary Over the past 20 years, attitudes towards domestic violence have shifted toward the concept of ‘family violence’ including recognition of male victimisation and the influence of socio-economic determinants. Statistics published by VicHealth (2014) indicate that in 2009 only 30% of Australians maintained the view that men account for most incidences of domestic violence. In fact, one in five Australians believe that domestic violence is equally perpetrated by both men and women (AIC: 2009). Accordingly to Lawson (2012) the rate of female to male spousal assault in the USA is somewhat similar, with females initiating violence in a large proportion of cases. However, he asserts that severe social stigma attached to male victims prevents the accurate reporting by men of assault perpetrated by female partners. Gordon (1988) maintains a similar perspective, arguing that women seek to control and aggress as much as men and are equally aggressive in domestic conflict, but more likely to direct this into verbal and socially manipulative acts intended to challenge male superiority (Hunnicutt: 2009). These accounts of spousal abuse are most commonly supported by ‘family violence’ theories and reject gender difference in the use of violence in an intimate relationship (Lawson: 2012). Family violence theorists largely support the notion of gender symmetry and structural inequalities in the occurrence of domestic violence, arguing it is just one expression of normative conflict within a larger family structure (Lawson: 2012). Increasingly applied in this argument is the personal, situational and sociocultural factors (Flood & Pease: 2008) considered to impact the propensity of male violence against female partners. Individual attributes including age, academic attainment levels, income, class and race are argued by family violence theorists to significantly influence the occurrence of male violence (Flood & Fergus: 2008). Statistically, domestic violence is also more likely to involve rural and aboriginal communities (AIC: 2009), alcoholism and substance abuse (Marcus & Braff & Gilbert: 2007), community disintegration and mental illness (White Ribbon: 2014). On a whole, family violence theory is primarily concerned with structural, social and economic inequalities that mediate the use of violence, proposing that domestic violence is rooted in conflict, not gender or patriarchal domination (Lawson: 2012). Counter Views - Limitations Contrary to US research that indicates domestic violence is equally perpetrated by men and women (Lawson: 2012), statistics published by the ABS (2013) demonstrate that twice as many women as men experience violence by a current or former partner suggesting that violence is structured along gendered lines (Hunnicutt: 2009). The notion that domestic violence is just as likely to be perpetrated by women is rejected by Dobash & Dobash (in Lawson: 2012) whereby they acknowledge that couples may occasionally experience physical force during conflict however, argue it is considerably different to the systematic, frequent and brutal force typical of a violent relationship. Accordingly, concepts such as family violence theory are considered far too gender blind in explaining intimate partner violence, casting perpetrators and victims as products of social disadvantage or marginalisation and obscuring the ways in which every act of violence against women is embedded in a broader social organisation (Hunnicutt: 2009). Although family violence theory acknowledges male dominance as a contributing factor to violence against women, it places exclusive focus on individual characteristics of the victim, offender and/or situation, disregarding gendered power arrangements (Hunnicutt: 2009). However, it is feminist theoretical accounts of domestic violence that consider the relationship between violence, gendered power relations and social constructions of masculinity that have considerably more explanatory power than biological determinism or family violence theory (Flood: 2002). The foundation of violence in society and history is supported in research which identifies that violence is stronger in cultures where manhood is culturally defined as linked to dominance, toughness or male honour (Flood: 2002). Further, research by VicHealth (2014) points to inequality between the sexes and an adherence to rigid gender roles as more significant causes of domestic violence. This is substantiated by Flood & Pease (2006) in research that demonstrates male economic and decision- making dominance in the family is one of the strongest predictors of cross-cultural societies in high levels of violence against women. Thesis Argument Feminist theories dispute the influence of biological and individual attributes in violence perpetrated against