Benevolent Intervention
Article 6:199 Obligations of the intervener - 1. During his benevolent intervention the intervener must act with prudent care and, as far as this reasonably can be expected of him, continue the intervention he has started. - 2. As soon as this is reasonably possible, the intervener renders account of his actions to the interested party. If he has spent or received money on behalf of the interested party, then he must render account as well for these payments.
Benevolent Intervention
Article 6:200 Obligations of the interested party - 1. As far as the interests of the interested party have been looked after properly, he must compensate the damage that the intervener has suffered as a result of his benevolent intervention. - 2. Where the intervener has acted in the course of his professional practice or business, he is in addition, as far as this is reasonable, entitled to a compensation for his performances, with due observance of the prices that at the time of the intervention are normally charged for such performances.
Boone and Hartman identified the phenomenon of benevolent overreaction to describe the enmeshment seen in parents and their chronically ill children. The cylce of the benevolent overreaction begins with the child's diagnosis with a chronic illness and the subsequent natural protective behaviors of the parents. However, overprotection may become pathologic if these protective behaviors persist and delay or prevent the child's achieving developmental goals. This ego boundary deficit is one of the most frequently seen phenomena in families with chronically ill children. On the Comprehensive Epilepsy Unit this phenomenon was repeatedly observed. The purpose of this investigation was to ascertain the frequency of benevolent overreaction seen on the unit, and to identify the nursing interventions used to address this issue. A chart review was used to identify the frequency of the phenomenon during the past year, the discipline first identifying the phenomenon and nursing interventions applied to the phenomenon. Nursing staff interviews were then conducted, using unit census records of the past year, to identify staff recall of the phenomenon. Nursing staff frequently identified the components of benevolent overreaction in the inpatient population, however, consistent intervention for the phenomenon was less frequently seen. Autonomy, empowerment and self-advocacy for families are goals of the Comprehensive Epilepsy Unit. Consistent application of the nursing process to this phenomenon is vital to providing quality patient care.
To sum up: benevolent intervention is a small field of law, but related to many other fields such as the winding up of void contracts, the regime of lacking representation or the regime of unjustified enrichment. In so far, the rules guiding the relationship between the intervener and the principal may offer a useful tool within the scope of the Common Frame of Reference. In general, the draft proposed by the Study Group is a balanced instrument to cope with the problems of benevolent intervention. Some questions, however, such as the scope of application, the duty of the intervener to continue his task and the authority of the intervener to act in the name of the principal, need further discussion.
This paper deals with the problems involved in transferring a cultural reference from in subtitling. The importance of appraising the transculturality level (i.e. how well known a reference is in the target culture) of these references is stressed, and also how such an appraisal is carried out. This is done in order to answer the crucial question of when a subtitler should go for benevolent intervention and help the viewers understand a cultural reference, and thus make sense of the text. There are indications that this is not always done anymore, and viewers are thus sometimes left in the dark.
The property is protected by various and very different tools that range in scale from national laws to municipal codes, covering both natural and cultural values. These provide sectorial guidelines or criteria for intervention and conservation of the property. Legal protection is adequate for individual buildings. In both countries, representative buildings have been granted monument status and are protected. This includes a number of buildings and building ensembles within the colonies which are protected as individual monuments. At the national level, all the Dutch colonies are fully or partially protected as villagescapes. In Belgium, Wortel is a protected cultural heritage landscape. Consideration should be given to ensuring the national villagescape protection should cover the full extent of Wilheminaoord. In the Netherlands, a new Environment & Planning Act will enter into force in 2021 to regulate the protection of heritage values, replacing the existing Spatial Planning Act. The new Act provides opportunities for the integral protection of Outstanding Universal Value, and for the assessment of new developments. The organisation of the management system for the property seems effective. This includes an intergovernmental committee to address issues between the States Parties, a transnational steering group, the designation of site holders in each country, a technical advisory committee, site managers and staff. There is a management plan consisting of a main document related to the whole property, as well as three specific plans for the component parts. The focus of the management plan is the preservation and reinforcement of the Outstanding Universal Value for the series as a whole and for the individual colonies. Risk preparedness is addressed through existing mechanisms rather than a specific strategy. Visitor management is achieved through a range of measures including visitor centres, interpretive materials and support facilities, and further measures are planned. Traffic management is recognised as an issue. Local communities and residents are closely involved in the management of the property through formal and other means. An ongoing challenge will be to manage the property as a unified whole, especially to ensure that conservation approaches evolve in the same direction.
Addressing the substantial gender inequalities that exist across a range of life domains1 requires an understanding of the effects of sexism. According to ambivalent sexism theory2, which was developed to account for the relationship between (cisgender and heterosexual) men and women, sexism includes a hostile component (overtly negative attitudes about men and women) and a benevolent component (attitudes towards men and women that seem subjectively positive but are actually harmful). These components differ in tone but are positively correlated and work together to perpetuate gender inequalities2.
In this Review, we take stock of the current understanding of ambivalent sexism to facilitate further research that addresses relevant societal shifts and their global contexts. First, we describe benevolent and hostile sexism and their predictors. We then review what is currently known about how both benevolent sexism and hostile sexism influence how women are perceived and treated (by both men and women). Next, we discuss how these types of sexism influence how women feel and behave, as well as romantic relationships between men and women. Although the applicability of findings to present socio-political contexts will be flagged throughout the paper, the final section more thoroughly considers shifts in global context and how these open up avenues for future research. We focus on research published within the past five years, but key older studies are also mentioned where they exemplify core theoretical aspects. We also focus primarily on sexism towards women. Ambivalent attitudes towards men also encompass hostile and benevolent components20, but these attitudes are less well understood. Importantly, they are strongly related to ambivalent sexism towards women and have been proposed to serve the same function of supporting male dominance over women21. Some examples of effects of ambivalent sexism on men are mentioned, especially where their effects on women are most direct.
Although hostile and benevolent sexism are opposite in tone, they both draw on gender stereotypes and therefore tend to be positively associated25 across nations7. The more hostile sexism there is in a given society, the more individuals in that society also endorse benevolent sexism7. Correspondingly, women who report more daily experiences with hostile sexism also report more daily experiences with benevolent sexism26. However, because hostile and benevolent sexism express gender stereotypes in distinct ways, there are important differences in how these two forms of sexism are perceived: hostile sexism is regarded as more objectionable than benevolent sexism27, in part because it is perceived as more sexist28. Benevolent sexism is perceived as harmless29 and even romantic30, and this makes men who endorse benevolent sexism seem likeable19,28,31. Hostile sexism is less frequently endorsed7 and expressed, and indeed women report more lifetime experiences with benevolent than hostile sexism26. However, in part because of the warmth it transmits, benevolent sexism can make hostile sexism seem more acceptable when expressed by the same person32.
Benevolent sexism is also seen as less objectionable than hostile sexism because it offers women benefits. For example, because benevolent sexism offers protection to women33, men who express benevolent sexism are seen as caring34. In addition, women who endorse benevolent sexism see the social system as fair35 and consequently report greater life satisfaction36.
In sum, both benevolent and hostile sexism express the belief that women are and should be submissive to men. However, benevolent sexism is considered more acceptable, and at times even flattering. This positive perception is a key property of ambivalent sexism that contributes to the perpetuation and pervasiveness of gender inequalities. 041b061a72
