Suchergebnisse

AbstractObjectiveTo understand how heterosexual US married parents interpret and respond to a spouse's unemployment and subsequent job‐searching.BackgroundThe pervasiveness of employment uncertainty, and unemployment, may propel families to embrace gender egalitarian norms. Quantitative research finds that this possibility is not borne out. Qualitative research has sought to illuminate mechanisms as to how gender norms persist even during a time that is optimal for dismantling them, but these mechanisms remain unclear.MethodSeventy‐two in‐depth interviews were conducted with a nonrandom sample of heterosexual, professional, dual‐earner, married, unemployed women, men, and their spouses in the United States. Follow‐up interviews were conducted with 35 participants. Intensive family observations were conducted with four families, two of unemployed men, and two of unemployed women.ResultsUnemployed women, men, and spouses acknowledge that a set of time‐intensive activities are key for reemployment (the ideal job‐seeker norm). Couples with unemployed men direct resources such as time, space, and even money to facilitate unemployed men's compliance with the ideal job‐seeker norm. Couples downplay the importance of women's reemployment and do not direct similar resources to help unemployed women job‐search.ConclusionCouples preserve a traditional gender status quo, often in defiance of material realities, by actively maintaining men's position at the helm of paid work and women's at unpaid work.ImplicationsLinking unemployment and job‐seeking with the institution of heterosexual marriage reveals novel insights into social and marital processes shaping job‐seeking.

To avoid reaching incorrect verdicts as a result of insufficient evidence, courts generally require witnesses to testify to all relevant facts within their knowledge. Two important exceptions to this general rule, incompetency and privilege, rest on very different rationales. Developed at common law to exclude unreliable evidence, rules of competency disqualify certain untrustworthy witnesses from testifying. To promote extrinsic public policies, however, privileges excuse competent witnesses from providing what may be highly probative and reliable evidence. In the past decade there have been calls for legislative or judicial recognition of a parent-child privilege, similar to the marital privilege, that would excuse parents from testifying against their offspring. In contrast to the virtually universal recognition of the marital privilege, however, among common law jurisdictions only Idaho recognized a parent–child privilege until a New York appellate court did so on federal constitutional grounds. This comment, in three parts, evaluates the propriety of recognizing a parent–child privilege. First, scrutiny of the general policy arguments advanced in support of the privilege and ananalysis of the privilege in light of Wigmore's conditions precedent to establishing any interpersonal privilege illustrate that sound public policy does not support recognition of a parent–child privilege. Second, despite the reasoning of the New York appellate court, the constitutional right of privacy does not encompass a parent–child privilege. Finally, the impossibility of fashioning an acceptable form of the privilege further demonstrates that a parent–child privilege should not be recognized.

Although testimonial privileges undermine the general rule that all relevant evidence is admissible at trial, legislatures and courts have recognized certain privileges primarily to protect. In these cases, the courts and legislatures have balanced the competing interests of full disclosure, on one hand, and the preservation of valued relationship, on the other, and have found that the latter outweighs the former. The attorney‐clint privilege, for example, exists to encourage truthful communications between attorney and client so that the client may obtain complete and accurate legal advice. Likewise, the marital privilege protects confidences between spouses to preserve the institution of marriage. The parent‐child relationship, while certainly valuable to society, has not been afforded the same protection. This note argues that a parent‐child privilege should exist. Basic constitutional principles, as well as comparative and social policy arguments, support the recognition of a parent‐child privilege.

Recent critical studies of men have focused on multiple masculinities and the need for a change in theorizing the hegemonic constructions of gender. This growing body of scholarship has influenced literary studies, particularly in the readings of male characters as presented in literary works. The portraiture of the male characters in Aidoo's Changes and Emecheta's The Joys of Motherhood has attracted the attention of critics who examine the conflicted hegemonic constructions of masculinity mediated by the powerful forces of colonialism and modernity. These critics contest the patriarchal privileges of masculinity and redefine the gender constructions of both sexes to reflect current studies which focus on the plurality, fluidity, and complexities of masculine roles. This paper argues that Aidoo and Emecheta's novels depict a hybridism of masculinities, in the context of marriage, in which both the male and the female characters strive to maintain a balance between their traditional African roles as husbands/wives, fathers/mothers and maintain an imitated eurocentric display of love and affection in enacting their roles in the marital enterprise.

Marriage has fallen on hard times. Although most Americans say that a lasting marriage is an important part of their life plans, the institution no longer enjoys its former exclusive status as the core family form. This is so largely because social norms that regulate family life and women's social roles have changed. A century (or even a couple of generations) ago, marriage was a stable economic and social union that, for the most part, lasted for the joint lives of the spouses. It was the only option for a socially sanctioned intimate relationship and was the setting in which most children were raised. Today, when about 40 percent of marriages end in divorce, marriage is a less stable relationship than it once was. It is also less popular; many couples choose to live in informal unions instead of marriage, and many children are raised by unmarried mothers, other family members, or by unmarried heterosexual or gay couples. These changes pose a challenge to foundational policies of family law. Formal marriage is a privileged legal status that receives substantial government protection and benefits, and is also defined by many legally enforceable rights and obligations between the spouses. In a world in which marriage no longer functions as well as it once did to provide care for children and to serve other family dependency needs, it is quite appropriate to ask whether the special legal status of marriage can be justified any longer. In this Article, I offer a modest defense of the privileged legal status of formal marriage (as I will define this union) and of neutrality toward informal intimate unions. My claim is that the special treatment of marriage can be justified, even if one has no nostalgic fondness for traditional family roles and rejects the moral superiority of marriage over other family forms. Through marriage, the government can delegate to the family some of society's collective responsibility for dependency. Retaining the privileged legal status of marriage in a contemporary setting can (and should) constitute part of a comprehensive policy of family support that acknowledges the pluralism of modem families.

The lack of equal recognition of concubinage in the legislations of different countries, leads to the fact that at present, and as a result of the constant migration characteristic of globalization, the rights or privileges that their accreditation or international recognition could grant are not guaranteed, both in the economic and health aspects and family in general, situation that is experienced in cases in which members of formal unions or marriages move from one country to another, because their rights are respected anywhere in the world while any Right is denied to those who have de facto marital ties. ; La falta de reconocimiento igualitario de los concubinatos en las legislaciones de diversos países, conduce a que en la actualidad, y como efecto de la migración constante propia de la globalización, no se garanticen los derechos o privilegios que su acreditación o reconocimiento internacional podría conceder, tanto en los aspectos económicos como de salud y familiar en general, situación que se vivencia en los casos en que miembros de las uniones formales o matrimonios se trasladan de un país a otro, pues se respetan sus derechos en cualquier lugar de la orbe mientras cualquier derecho le es negado a quienes tienen lazos maritales de facto.

The lack of equal recognition of concubinage in the legislations of different countries, leads to the fact that at present, and as a result of the constant migration characteristic of globalization, the rights or privileges that their accreditation or international recognition could grant are not guaranteed, both in the economic and health aspects and family in general, situation that is experienced in cases in which members of formal unions or marriages move from one country to another, because their rights are respected anywhere in the world while any Right is denied to those who have de facto marital ties. ; La falta de reconocimiento igualitario de los concubinatos en las legislaciones de diversos países, conduce a que en la actualidad, y como efecto de la migración constante propia de la globalización, no se garanticen los derechos o privilegios que su acreditación o reconocimiento internacional podría conceder, tanto en los aspectos económicos como de salud y familiar en general, situación que se vivencia en los casos en que miembros de las uniones formales o matrimonios se trasladan de un país a otro, pues se respetan sus derechos en cualquier lugar de la orbe mientras cualquier derecho le es negado a quienes tienen lazos maritales de facto.

Drawing on gender construction theory, this study examines marital construction of breadwinning as both responsibility and privilege in urban China in the market reform (1978–). Data come from interviews with 39 married couples in Beijing in the summer of 1998. Husbands are found to be more devoted to paid work than are wives, although both spouses are active in the labor market. Moreover, both wives and husbands prefer the husband to be the main or obligatory provider and the wife to be a family-committed career seeker. The analysis shows that the persistence of the male provider role in urban China is mainly due to marital interactions on an everyday basis, the normative constraints of the breadwinning boundary to both genders, and the lack of an economic environment that provides wives with a sufficient number of self-fulfilling jobs and socialized domestic services.

Intro -- International Fraud Handbook -- Contents -- Preface -- Acknowledgments -- About the ACFE -- Part I -- Chapter 1 Introduction -- What Is Fraud? -- Components of Fraud -- What Factors Lead to Fraud? -- The Fraud Triangle -- Control Weaknesses -- The Impact of Fraud -- All Organizations Are Susceptible to Fraud -- The High Cost of Occupational Fraud -- The Indirect Costs -- Types of Fraud Affecting Organizations -- Occupational Fraud -- External Fraud -- Notes -- Chapter 2 Legal Issues Pertaining to Fraud -- Types of Legal Systems -- Religious and Secular Systems -- Common Law and Civil Law Systems -- Definition of Evidence -- Three Basic Forms of Evidence -- Direct versus Circumstantial Evidence -- Admissibility of Evidence -- Relevant -- Authentic -- Admissibility of Testimonial Evidence -- Examples of Common Evidentiary Rules in Adversarial Proceedings -- The Rule against Character Evidence -- The Rule against Opinion Testimony -- The Rule against Hearsay -- Chain of Custody -- Privileges and Protections -- Legal Professional Privileges -- Legal Work Privileges -- Self-Evaluation Privilege -- Marital Privilege -- Parent-Child Privilege -- Law Enforcement Privilege to Withhold the Identity of an Informant -- Accountant-Client Privilege -- Other Privileges -- Judicial Treatment of Privileges from Foreign Jurisdictions -- Individual Rights during Examinations -- Employees' Duties and Rights -- Employees' Duty to Cooperate -- Duty to Preserve Information Relevant to Litigation -- Employees' Contractual Rights -- Whistle-Blower Protections -- Employees' Privacy Rights in the Workplace -- Individuals' Rights and Obligations under Criminal Law -- The Law Relating to Government Search and Seizure -- Search Warrants -- Investigations in Private Actions -- Defamation -- Privacy Laws.