Recent orders

Response to the Discussion Post

Discussion Post

Student’s Name

Institutional Affiliation

Course Tittle

Professor’s Name

Date

Response to the Discussion Post

Question 1

When a baby is born with an intersex condition, it signifies a condition where there is a discrepancy between the internal genitals and the external genitals. It is a condition in which a newborn’s external genitals do not seem to be clearly either female or male. The infant might have characteristics of both sexes or the genitals may be incompletely developed. The model of social diagnosis identifies two principles: 1) myriad social actors, as well as clinicians, donate to diagnostic processes and labels; and 2) extra-therapeutic social structures frame diagnosis (Danon, 2018). Intersex medical interventions also referred to as intersex genital mutilations which are hormonal, surgical, and other medical interventions should be done to modify ambiguous or atypical sex characteristics and genitalia, mainly for the aim of making an individual’s appearance more distinctive and to lessen the possibility of future complications. Interventions on intersex infants and children are gradually identified as human rights matters.

Question 2

After watching the film on intersexuality, I believe that we should create a new sex category for intersex individuals. It is a condition that exists and an individual cannot be considered as either male or female. There are many additional, incommensurate, and, contested lenses through which intersex individuals are perceived. It shows diverse beliefs and values about the same individuals, including meaning, demands, treatment, and concerns (Hegarty et al., 2020). Law progressively perceives intersex persons as members of third sex. It gives a reason why we should create a new sex category for them. On the other hand, historical research indicates that intersex persons usually exist and have been accommodated. Medical lenses perceive intersex characters as conditions of sex development and individuals with these individualities are regarded as male or female and focusses on treatment. Gender, anthropology, and queer studies have regarded intersex as a depiction of misconceptions that underpin particular cultural norms for gender and sex.

Reference

Danon, L. M. (2018). Time matters for intersex bodies: Between socio-medical time and somatic time. Social Science & Medicine, 208, 89-97.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.05.019

Hegarty, P., Donnelly, L., Dutton, P. F., Gillingham, S., Vecchietti, V., & Williams, K. (2020). Understanding of intersex: The meanings of umbrella terms and opinions about medical and social responses among laypeople in the United States and United Kingdom. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity.

https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/sgd0000413

victimization_theories.edited

Discussion board posting

Student’s Name

Institution Affiliation

Discussion board posting

Select and discuss two victimization theories, and compare and contrast how they address the various behaviors that lead to individuals becoming victims

Theoretically, criminology attempts to explain theories of how and why crime occurs through examining different facts that are in one way or another related to crime and criminal behavior. Currently, there have been a number of theories which attempt to give an explanation of some of the causes of victimization. Some of the leading four different types of victimization theories include; deviant place theory, lifestyle theory, victim precipitation theory and routine activities theory. There are also other theories such as Mendelsohn’s theory of victimization, Stephen Schafer’s functional responsibility, Von Hentig’s theory of victimization, Karmen’s theory of victimization, Wolfgang’s study of homicide among others. This paper will, however, discuss two victimization theories: lifestyle theory and routine activity theory through comparing and contrasting how both address the various behaviors which lead to people becoming victims.

To start with, lifestyle theory purports that people are targeted depending on their lifestyles choices which expose them to become victims of crime. Criminologist believes that Individuals lifestyle increases their exposure to crime. The risk of victimization is increased with such lifestyle like going to public places at night, relating with younger men, living in crime prone parts such as urban areas, excessive use of alcohol, taking drugs among other behaviors. Victimization according to lifestyle theory is not random but a part of individuals lifestyle which the victims pursue (Siegel, 2017). On the other hand, routine activity theory usually explains victimization rate through a set of three different variables which reflects the routine of people’s behavior. The three variables include; (1) the availability of appropriate target such as leaving home for vacation, (2) the lack of capable guardianship such as neighbours, homeowners, lack of police protection, lack of alarms and different security devices, and (3) the availability of motivated offenders such as teenage boys, unemployed people, known felons, addicts and others LaineHarper (2014). According to this theory, the availability of one or more of the above factors usually creates an increased risk of victimization.

How are the theories different in their victim assessments? Explain.

These two theories differ in their victim assessment through how both theories view the behavior which usually put individuals at risk of being victimized. Lifestyle theory usually conceives this risks in probabilistic means where specific behavior increases an individual’s odds of being an offenders target to crime. On the other hand, routine activity theory usually describes the event of victimization itself. For instance, if the three variables converge (lack of capable guardian, the presence of suitable target and availability of motivated offenders) victimization is said to happen. However, if one of the variables is missing, routine activity theory is said to be avoided (Pratt & Turanovic, 2015).

How are the theories similar in the victim assessments? Explain.

Both lifestyle theory and routine activity theories have some similarities in the victim assessment. To start with, both theories usually assume that the victim’s living arrangement can affect his/her risk and that those individuals who live in unguarded areas have greater risks of being victims of crime. Both theories rely on the four concepts; exposure time to criminals, criminals proximity, guardianship and target attractiveness. Additionally, both theories have five predictions in common how people increase their risk to victimization; (1) going out late at night, (2) carrying valuables items, (3) living in high-crime areas, (4) engaging in risky behaviours such as taking drugs and alcohol and (5) being without guardians to help or watch. In conclusion, routine activity theory and lifestyle theory both see victimization through the convergence lens of an attractive victim/target, a motivated offender as well as the absenteeism of a capable guardianship. These theories give out the fact that activities and lifestyle of different individuals put them in situations or environment where they are less or more prone to possible offenders and at risk of victimization.

Reference

LaineHarper (2014). The Four theories of victimization. Retrieved from

https://soapboxie.com/government/The-Four-Theories-of-Victimization

Pratt, T.C., & Turanovic, J.J. (2015). Lifestyle and routine activity theories revisited: The importance of “risk” to the study of victimization. Victims & Offenders. 11(3): 335–354. Retrieved from

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15564886.2015.1057351?src=recsys&journalCode=uvao20

Siegel, L. J. (2017). Criminology: the core. 6th ed., [International ed.]. Boston, MA: United States: Cengage Learning. Retrieved from

https://books.google.co.ke/books?id=VZZ4CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA73&lpg=PA73&dq=victimization+theories,+and+compare+and+contrast&source=bl&ots=juPafm3d8u&sig=s26wboWqJj9yLm-6MbK5cRZ1rIs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjS18vzyuvRAhVqAsAKHTodCIUQ6AEIQjAH#v=onepage&q=victimization%20theories%2C%20and%20compare%20and%20contrast&f=false

Social workers work in different roles in society; these roles vary from organisation and community to community

Discussion 4

Social workers work in different roles in society; these roles vary from organisation and community to community. They can be in the interpretation of system theories, empowerment of communities or role theory formulation. System theory is the interdisciplinary analysis of organization of phenomenon (biological, technological, social or material) with an aim of explaining values applicable to such phenomenon. Empowerment is the process where individuals, organisation or societies feel they have the capacity to find solutions to problems facing them, control those means and when they have authority to make free decision without coercion (Rubin & Rubin, 2000). As social workers in society, we are also involved with the explanation of the roles of different individuals and organization in society. How the roles come into play in the benefit of the society as a whole clearly set out by the social workers.

The components of the field of action that we would so much need to work with are among them the policy formulation team, the community and the local leaders. These will be the major components of our involvement with the society and they will greatly have a bearing on what we will do as a team of the Central Church Family and the Low Building management. The community need to be involved in the whole process by giving their ideas on a proper way of realizing the tenant houses. Participatory processes in the realization of objectives in the community asset-based community building are most appropriate. There will be attempts to include local administration in the process to ensure that the projects do not interfere with laws of the land. These will form part of the action plan and will assist in the implementation of the project undertaken (Hardcastle, Powers, & Wenocur, 2011).

Client system refers to the relationship that exists between a social worker and the environment in which they are working. How the environment influences the decision made by the client in solving the problem is what a client system is. The Central Church Family and tenants are the clients who need to be involved in the whole process and whose actions and decisions will affect the realization of the asset- building project.

Potential target system is the neighbouring tenants from the poor neighbourhood. There is need to expand the circle of participation by encouraging more members to come into the group. The good internal relationships with initial members will be the stepping-stone to external connections (Hardcastle, Powers, & Wenocur, 2011). At this level, asset mapping, coalition and networking skills come to play. Members bring their friends and neighbours to important action system events and meetings. It is good to state here that members must feel appreciated and involved in the actions of the action system.

Task environment is that particular external environment that directly affects the operations of the organisation. It is the interface environment experienced by an organisation from its course of running its business and therefore there is need for an organization to ensure that they take into consideration factors as they have a direct impact on their returns. The task environment is composed of the strategic partners; these are the companies and organisation that work together for the benefit of both parties. Competitors, they are those organizations that either is using the same raw materials or offer the same service hence compete for resources. Third, is a customer who are also an element in the task environment, suppliers are also part of the task environment and they are involved with the provision of the organization’s needs (Rubin & Rubin, 2000). Government agencies also form party of this environment and are involved with the regulation and provision of guidelines on the best way to run this asset-building community projects.

There is need for a proper and fair exchange programme between the task environment members and the Low Building society for both will benefit from a good customer relationship. The government agencies should come up with regulation that will promote the activities of the Low Building. Suppliers should supply the products and raw materials as prescribed and in time. Low building supply quality products to consumers and they should pay fairly for goods (Hardcastle, Powers, & Wenocur, 2011). There is need of consideration in the transactions. These power sharing will affect the strategies employed because there will be need to consider outside players as opposed to when the sole power remained with the client.

Obstacles encountered in the formulation of onsite social services include a rise of a conflict. There will be resistance from the key players in the whole industry; the change brought about by new strategies resisted. This is due to conflict theory where there are always the conservative parties.

Self-efficacy will come into play in these setting, there is every reason to transact and hold client ideas as valid arguments and give them a good reasoning. There is no need to view ourselves as the only people with best ideas but allow others to make their contributions (Rubin & Rubin, 2000).

Political ideologies play a role in the realization and coordination of the project. Political goodwill and support is the key in realizing the project.

The unorganized tenants’ position of high rents is only looking on the short run. They need to see the need to have a good environment and setting. There is every reason to believe in the Central Church Family Service Centre.

Political consciousness has risen because political ideologies and believes are key to the realization of good projects in society.

References

Hardcastle, D.A., Powers, P.A., & Wenocur, S. (2011). Community practice: Theories and skills for social workers, (3rd ed.). New York: OxfordUniversity.Rubin, H. J. & Rubin, I. S. (2000).Community organizing and development, (3rd ed.). Boston: Imprint/Allyn and Bacon.