Saturday, March 19, 2011

Responsibilities and Jobs of a Domestic Assessor



The world is in a mortal peril. The rate at which we are destroying our ecosystem is staggering and shocking. The human race has destroyed millions of acres of forestland, and has converted it into farms and for civilization. The earth is calling us to take some concrete steps to maintain the fulcrum and balance of our environment.

If this continues unabated, all of mankind may cease to exist in a few more centuries. Fortunately, all the countries in the world have realized that something concrete must be done to preserve the environment. The rich countries have vowed to take action against global climate change by bringing in modern green technologies.

For the past 100 years, technology has destroyed the ecosystem. Today the invention of green technology or the technology which is helpful to the environment has raised the hope of restoring the ecosystem. A domestic Energy Assessor has the onus to preserve the environment and to prevent humans from running it. A person is entitled to carry out assessments in households, only and only if he is qualified as a Domestic Energy Assessor from the institution of an accredited quality. However one needs to pay heed to many issues that may come up during the process. Therefore a high degree of professionalism maintained by independent thoughts and a firm judgment is very much needed.

The Domestic Energy Assessor must have an Insurance policy in case he gets sued by a client. The client can sue him on the basis that the data he has provided is faulty. There are a specific set of rules that need to be followed by every DEA, and every decision must be made by keeping the regulations in mind. There are many factors that the DEA must consider before he gives his decision. The factors include the risk and safety involved. The space for 'space heating' need to be determined by the dimension of buildings that are yet to be constructed and the buildings that already have been. If there are any changes that the DEA feels should be inducted, he can give suggestions to the home owners.

Energy appliances are thoroughly checked for the level of emission. One may change the arrangement or the appliances in order to make the house environment friendly. If the cavity in the walls is not insulated properly, it is possible you may have issues. Energy can be saved, if the walls are insulated properly. Moreover the SAP (Standard Assessment Procedure) ratings will improve and your energy bill will come down. The DEA inspectors will also carefully look at the boilers, fireplaces and heaters in the house. The DEA inspectors are provided the access to every nook and corner of the construction. Co-operation and willingness to listen is always required of the home owners. The DEA inspector must be polite and quick. The DEA inspector checks the age of the building, extensions, if any and the materials used for the construction of the building. Every factor, whether big or small come into play when having the environmental friendly home is concerned.

Legal Domestic Abuse - Is the Family Court System Supposed to Be Just and Fair?

I often hear domestic violence survivors hollering that the family court system is not being just and fair. They say, it is supposed to be just and fair yet, it isn't.

My question is, "Is that true?" I'm not sure if the word "fair" is relevant here.

What Is Before the Court

You see the family court system is really about adjudicating on what's before the court. And what's before the court is more a matter of what the attorneys put before the court, that is, what they put in front of the judge.

So, if you are scratching your head or tearing your hair out over what's just and fair, I recommend that you consider what's before the court.

It's your business to carefully monitor whether your case is being put before the court in a way that represents your best interest. And if it is not, it is your responsibility to do something about it.

It is not the court's responsibility to make sure your position is properly represented. Rather, the court's job is merely to pass judgment on what is before the judge.

Being Proactive to Create Justice

Now, it is true that battered women often get the raw end of the deal in family court. It is also true that one of the reasons for this is because they are not knowledgeable on how to get their case before the court.

And sadly, as is typically the case, their counsel reflexively operates according to the financial politics of the case. You may think it is cold and cruel that finances govern the operation of the legal judicial system; but let's face it, attorneys are paid court agents. They are not free public servants, at least not in divorce court.

If you are a domestic violence survivor and protective parent in a custody or divorce matter, be mindful of the influence and control you could have by getting your case before the court.


Friday, March 18, 2011

Domestic Abuse and Family - The Use of Your Family to Carry Out Your Abusive Partner's Agenda

To add insult to injury, confusion to the complicated, mystery to the already oozing drama is the use of your own family to carry out your abusive partner's agenda. Why?
Whose Family Is My Family?
If you're perplexed as to why your parents are suddenly supporting your partner's desire to have you out of your house, or his interest to have you out of your children's lives, it may be time to look closer at the dynamics in play.
If you don't, you may be inadvertently allowing for the destruction of some important family support at a time when you need them most. In fact this, in part, is why this strategy is often used. It adds to your isolation!
What to Do When You Notice Your Family Is Acting Like His Family
If you are working your way out of an abusive relationship and must pass through the social political ropes of family court, pay close attention to what side of the courtroom your immediate family gravitates. And as hard as this may seem, recognize this too is NOT about you.
Abusive people will use any and all of your natural network of strength as though they own natural rights to what's yours. And from here, they will work these supporters to be your enemies and to become their allies, all in an effort to strengthen their efforts to carry out their own agendas.
If you approach the least likely member of your family to be drawn into this strategic ploy first, you will be more successful at influencing the whole clan before the seduced support for your partner's agenda spirals out of control.
Let this family member know you know what is and/or may be going on, and ask them to serve as your voice with other members of the family. This way you can keep your focus on your personal battles and enlist a messenger to offset this ploy. Furthermore, this family member's message to the rest of the family is likely to be received more objectively than if it came from you.

God Willing? Political Fundamentalism in the White House, the 'War on Terror', and the Echoing Press

David Domke, God Willing? Political Fundamentalism in the White House, the 'War on Terror', and the Echoing Press. London and Ann Arbor, Ml: Pluto Press, 2004. 240 pp.
The relationship between politics and media has always been a topic for vast researches. On the other hand the use of religious discourse in addresses and speeches of politicians to back their policies is not a new issue. But what is done in this book that makes is outstanding and different is an analysis of the interconnections among all these three together. Thus David Domke's book is ideally positioned to cut right into the heart of debates about the modern developments at the intersection of religion, politics and media within the US. According to him, the foreign and domestic foreign developments in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 were not only (neo) conservative, but also firmly grounded in a (Christian) religious fundamentalism. Domke argues that the Bush administration has turned a religious worldview into political policy and has created what Domke calls a 'political fundamentalism', defined as 'an intertwining of conservative religious faith, politics, and strategic communication' (p. 6). The book is also a critique of the Bush administration's disregard for democracy in the months following the attack.
The introductory chapter of God Willing? identifies four main characteristics of the Bush administration's communication that were grounded in a conservative religious worldview: (1) a binary concept of reality (apparent in the consistent use of two constructions: good vs. evil and security vs. peril); (2) an obsession with time and demands for immediate action against terrorism(manifest in two beliefs: that action in the here and now is imperative, and that one's commitment to a certain course of action, if perceived to be God inspired, should be of an enduring nature); (3) declarations about the will of god for the united states and the values of freedom and liberty; and finally (4) an intolerance for dissent(apparent in the administration's unified voice in public communication, its appeals for other political actors to act with political unity and its harsh criticisms of dissenters). In each of the chapters that follow, one of these characteristics is defined and discussed in detail, with evidence offering its consistent presence in the public communications of the president between 11 September 2001 and 1 may 2003.
In chapter 2 he examines the presence of two binaries in the president's discourse and news coverage after September 11- good versus evil and security versus peril- and argues that these conceptions of reality reflected and contributed to a sense of moral certitude among the bush administration that was used to justify limits on civil liberties and major preemptive military action while also helping to engender public support for the president and administration's "war on terror".
Chapter 3 offers evidence of time fixations throughout the administration's discourse and news coverage, and argues that they allowed the administration simultaneously to push for immediate action on specific "war on terrorism" policies and to justify this desire as a requisite step in a long-term, God- ordained process. The implication was clear: to not act quickly or to not endure in the campaign against terrorism was to risk another September 11.
In chapter 4 evidence is offered of how the universal gospel of freedom and liberty, offered by the president and echoed by the press, functioned as a central rationale for the administration's foreign policies, particularly in justifying the new preemptive doctrine and the Iraq war.
Chapter 5 focuses on how the administration's emphasis upon political unity and harsh rebukes of those dissented worked together to encourage support for the administration, and to suggest that anyone who held opposing views was unpatriotic and potentially placing people in the United States at risk.
Chapter 6 reflects upon the collection of evidence, in three central sections. First, it argues that the Bush administration offers an instructive case study of how political fundamentalism can gain wide support in the United States. The chapter's second section scrutinizes the role of news media in these processes, with the argument that in a nation-challenging context, commercial mass media are drawn to the discourses of political conservatives, particularly those that are religiously grounded. The final section of the chapter explores how cultural leaders might craft a moral discourse that counters the predominance of political fundamentalism, and why it is crucial for U.S. citizens and others that they do so.
Chapter 7 offers conclusions, focusing on implications of the administration's political fundamentalism for democracy, both in the United States and globally.
In the way the writer brings a rigorous analysis of a wide range of empirical material, David Domke's work is of great value to study. However, to what extent his work can contribute to a better understanding of the relationship between religion, politics, and the media is a matter of question. Some scholars may find it the role of religion has been exaggerated. Some scholars may question the way he has analyzed meaning formation and reception in media as it is a subjective matter. Nevertheless, the book very well clarifies how the actions of the Bush administration and the news media are directly counter to fundamental American democratic ideals and principles. It shows how civil religion is used to promote its political goals and to justify self-interest. So "God Willing" is a must-read for anyone who cherishes American democracy, anyone who feels uneasy about the Bush Administration's use of religious images, as well as those who have concerns about the way the press helps Bush advance his agenda. However, the potential and necessity for further discussion on the subject exists that can encourage other scholars.

Living With Your Domestic Maid - 5 Tips for Maintaining Personal Space and Privacy at Home

Having a live-in maid is a delicate arrangement. For the duration of her work contract, an adult woman is "adopted" into your household, sharing your private living space. Clearly, such constant and close-proximity contact affects the privacy of both the recruiting family and the foreign maid. It is therefore surprising that many employers fail to give sufficient thought and planning to this unique situation, to ensure the personal space and privacy of everyone involved.
For harmonious living with your domestic help, you need to anticipate the privacy concerns of your family and maid, and actively address these issues. This may be difficult task because most people don't feel comfortable talking about their privacy requirements. Ignoring this awkward topic would be a short-sighted tactic, and a sure-fire recipe for conflicts later on.
We include below a few pointers to help you tackle the subject of privacy with a live-in domestic maid. As employers, the husband and wife should discuss frankly and prepare themselves before the "stranger" steps foot into their family home. Plan and implement specific dos and don't s to minimize any intrusion into their personal, couple and family lives.
  1. Adjust your displays of affection While hand-holding, quick pecks on the cheek, and cuddling in front of the TV are probably fine, you would be wise to keep the overtly romantic gestures out of the plain view of your maid. Of course, sensibility and decency are the obvious reasons to confine amorous exploits between spouses to the bedroom. A less obvious, but important, reason is to avert any feelings of loneliness and envy from your maid, who is far away from her own loved ones.
  2. Dress suitably Some adult males go shirtless while lifting weights and exercising at home; some walk from the shower to the wardrobe with only a towel wrapped around their waists. Some folks unclothe and dump the laundry directly into the wash, wearing little or nothing beside the washing machine, in the privacy of their own homes. Breastfeeding mothers lose their inhibition when nursing their babies within the four walls of their residence. While natural, such behaviours need to be toned down with the presence of a stranger in the house. Different people have varying levels of comfort for such exhibitionist conduct, and your maid may have a markedly more conservative upbringing.
  3. Avoid confidential discussions and heated quarrels in front of the maid Family members disagree sometimes, but always strive to resolve the disputes in private, without rallying the maid's support for either party. Learn to settle domestic quarrels quickly and amicably. Prolonged quarrels between the employers is embarrassing, for both for participants and witnesses! (A member shares his personal experience in our maid forum [http://www.maidaware.com/forum/index.php?topic=8.msg30#msg30].)
  4. Respect the personal space of every home occupant Everyone should have his own time and space to indulge in private thoughts and activities, such as personal grooming, leisure and rest. Promote a respect for privacy in your household, and seek your maid's cooperation and understanding, to engage in some activities without her involvement. For example, you may wish to plan a fortnightly movie date with your spouse, or an outing with the kids to their grandparents' house without the maid tagging along. At the same time, respect your maid's need for time off to meet her own friends, and support her needs to communicate periodically with her family back in her home country.
  5. Maintain an open communication channel with your maid Our cultural and social conditioning influence our thoughts and behaviour. Despite your best intentions and efforts, your maid may feel uncomfortable with certain practices in your household. Instead of allowing the frustration to fester inside, you should solicit her feedback from time to time. Sometimes, it may be a small and simple matter that is easily resolved once it is made known. To quote an example, our maid felt awkward with a neighbour's harmless interaction with our year-old toddler. This elderly gentleman would bend forward to stroke our daughter's head and coo at her. I thought it is a friendly and heart-warming gesture, and would hold her in my arms while the neighbour talked and played with her. During a recent casual conversation, our maid finally revealed her fear and wariness about such close contact with a stranger. She fret over chance encounters with this neighbour. As my employee, she felt obliged to emulate my friendly disposition towards the man, which goes against her basic instincts. Made aware of her feeling of "privacy infringement", I had a polite word with the neighbour, and resolved this underlying problem quickly and successfully.

The Politics of Division

Does the average American hold to a consistent ideological policy on every issue? Does the average American agree with their stated political party on every issue? Do political parties consistently hold to their same ideology or platform over the decades? The answer to all is a no!
The ideals of conservatives and liberals are not always constant across all lines. At times, these philosophies have even seemed interchangeable between the political parties. People are confused when they look at traditional definitions of the conservative and liberal and try to reconcile them to the "labels" today. That is because politicians exploit these terms to their own purpose.
"Conservative" and "liberal" are loaded terms because of the rhetoric politicians use against each other. Calling someone a liberal gives an automatic negative reaction from a segment of the public; this is true even though they may not truly understand what the term represents. The same is true when you label someone a conservative; it is a signal to automatically reject that person and their values. This is the politics of divisiveness. This style of politics is destructive. It is intended to be so.
"Politics" itself has become a dirty word:
The Oxford Dictionary describes "politics" as:
"1 the activities associated with governing a country or area, and with the political relations between states.
2 a particular set of political beliefs or principles."
Compare that to Oxford's definition of "party politics" as: "Politics that relate to political parties rather than to the public good."
Implicit in these definitions is that "politics" is designed to provide for the governing of a country for the public good; "party politics" is not concerned with the public good, but rather the good of the party; the public good is left on the trash heap and the good of the party becomes the goal.
THE CHALLENGE AHEAD
Conservatism and liberalism should not be a "one or the other" choice. Both philosophies have proven their value to society over time, and both should be part of our future. Both philosophies should be understood, and both appreciated for their contributions. Both can, in fact, be held at the same time. For example, our society needs to move ahead with new solutions to the problems we face (a liberal value), but tempered to whatever degree possible by practices in the past which have proven successful (a conservative value).
In other words, by all means, let us move forward, while learning from the past. However, to do this, we must get past the party politics of division and blame.
Barack Obama did not become President of the same country that he started campaigning for in early 2007. Obama is now the President of a country in turmoil. It is not an enviable position. Where will Obama draw the strength to lead America out of its turmoil?
Obama faces challenges that perhaps no American President has faced since Franklin Roosevelt came into office in 1932. Roosevelt faced a world-wide depression, and a world increasingly threatened by fascist powers in the Pacific and Europe. Roosevelt stood up to those issues; it was not easy and it was not fully completed until after Roosevelt's death. However, America survived those times, and emerged a stronger nation for it.
President Obama now faces a U.S. economy that is in ruins, our confidence shaken to its core. The U.S. military faces a war on two fronts, Iraq and Afghanistan. Afghanistan, once thought won, is threatening to spill over into Pakistan, which in turn, may spill over into India. Iraq could yet still spill over into Turkey and Iran. Combined, these two issues, economics and war, will demand our attention.
ENDING THE POLITICS OF DIVISION
Two centuries ago, Edmund Burke said, "All government, indeed every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue, and every prudent act, is founded on compromise and barter." President Obama must find a way to lift America's spirit, and gain its peoples' confidence. To do that, he must find a way around the divisive politics that has poisoned the American political system, for Obama cannot solve America's problems alone. He will need a Congress willing to work in earnest to find solutions and compromise. Otherwise, business as usual in Washington, D.C. bodes poorly for America.
The founding of America was a remarkable event in history. America put to the test the question of whether man is fit to rule himself, whether man is capable of providing equality and justice, or is man to be ruled by Monarchy or aristocracy, for his own good. America became the world's first democratic nation. One of the major principles of America is that it is governed under the U.S. Constitution, not by the will of men; the final source of authority is the people, not a Monarch, not a President. The rights of the people were set above all else, to be preserved for all posterity. The opening line of the U.S. Constitution states this boldly and plainly:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence (sic), promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Since its inception, there have been those that charge America is destined to fail; and yet, America has survived for over 200 years. However, America will not survive as a democracy, if its people fail in their desire for the principles that founded America: liberty, justice, equality, and virtue. It is a burden that America willingly undertook in 1776 with the Declaration of Independence, and carried it through a bloody Civil War, and two World Wars. Can the American people continue to carry this burden? If it is to be, it must be through the people, for in a democracy, there can be no other.
After obtaining a degree in political science, I embarked on a career in insurance and government. For the last 21 years, I have worked for local government and government associations. I have written articles, as well as manuals, assisting local government in effectively managing their activities and exposures. I have also provided training in these areas, been a frequent speaker at educational seminars, and acted as President of an association of governmental employees.
During this time, I continued an interest in the politics that is embedded in government and where politics is leading this nation in the Twenty First Century.

Earn Online Political Science Masters Degree For A Better Future

After earning a bachelor's degree, people get busy in their professional life that they hardly get time to earn their master's degree, in this way they either sacrifice their on going job, so that they can enhance their skills to attain a brighter career or they drop the idea of getting their master's degree, instead of leaving their current job in the middle. Therefore, those who have earned their bachelors degree in political science or in a related field of study can easily enroll for their online political science masters degree. This degree is offered online at a number of well known accredited colleges and universities.
By the end of online political science masters degree, graduates become capable to analyze, from an international point of view various political issues. This is because; they acquire academic qualification important in this regard, hence, it is assumed that they can be the future's finest political scientists.
Those who opt to excel in the field of political science, by earning their masters degree, make efficient use of their practices of life as well as their work and undergraduate experience, to discover profound issues of politics and power. Thus, in this way, they find it easy to extend their understanding of political structure and its impact on domestic and international policy.
During the program, students study the theories and philosophies behind government, political processes and economies. Furthermore, the theories behind democracy are assessed and recognized by them. They also learn to make comparison between those theories and other political systems. Including the study of American government and its policies, students also study about various other governments in different parts of the world. After completing online political science masters degree, students acquire the skills to interact in a global system.
In addition, the students of online political science masters degree analyze that how public policies and political systems are developed, operated and originated. They learn research methodologies as well, so that they can collect data and perform appropriate analysis and research in their domain.
Moreover, while earning the degree, students are skilled in collecting and analyzing data, in taking interviews, in doing surveys and in presenting their findings by maintaining a proper report, which is very useful for political lobbying, nonprofit, civic and social organizations.
Students are taught a number of courses, during this degree program that includes contemporary political theory, international politics, American government and politics, East Asian politics, environmental politics, European politics, Feminist political theory, International economics, Public policy, Critical geopolitics and various others.
Career Prospects and Salary Information
As stated by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, in near future, political scientists will be highly in demand, because the employment rate is expected to rise to a great level. Hence, graduates of online political science masters degree will find rewarding career opportunities in their domain.
After earning online political science masters degree, one can opt from a variety of careers available in business, teaching, government, journalism, political activism and in various other areas. Like in government one can work as a politician, legislator, ambassador, diplomat, lobbyist, an electoral official, a political campaign worker and etc. Furthermore, positions other then in government includes political researcher, legislative analyst, corporate public affairs advisor, sociologist, historian, lawyer, judge, political journalist, political talk show host and etc.
Depending on the nature of federal, state and local governments, it has been found that there are positions available for people having political science background. This is because of retirements and promotions that gradually or sometimes rapidly takes place in federal, state and local governments. Whenever, economic insecurities are encountered, positions in federal government are found highly competitive.

Psychological Abuse - 3 Secrets to Saving Your Sanity in Domestic Abuse Divorce

A common threat to battered women in divorce proceedings is their perpetrator's use of psychology to officially, yet improperly, establish that they are mentally ill. And all too often, these domestic violence survivors sit back and do nothing to prevent this from happening. 
They are flooded with the mental/emotional assault and, like a deer caught in headlights, show startle...sever startle that is in many cases paralyzing and debilitating. 
If you are a domestic abuse survivor and you suspect that you are being set up to be backed into wearing a psychiatric label that is being established to discredit, silence, contain or punish you, what would you do? 
My suspicion is you have options that you may not have considered. Here are some key steps you can do to protect yourself from being improperly labeled with a psychiatric diagnosis. 
FIRST, find a credible psychologist that is knowledgeable in domestic violence dynamics and the psychosocial politics of domestic abuse. Secure your own evaluation from this professional. 
SECOND, keep this to yourself. You have a right to a second opinion and you have a right to "privilege;" that is, your communications and involvement with your psychologist are confidential. 
THIRD, consult with a professional that can show you how to block the strategies that are commonly used to fabricate mental illness. Study the tactics and heighten your awareness of their subtle manifestations. 
By doing this you will more likely prevent legal-psychiatric abuse typical of domestic violence divorce. And in the long run, you will increase your likelihood of obtaining the outcome you desire in your divorce proceedings.

Ditch the Political System and Start Over; These Morons Cannot Do Anything Right?

More and more people these days are upset that the government of the United States of America cannot do anything right. It is true to the United States government does not do anything very well and it is also true that they are very inefficient at everything they do.
Obviously you cannot run Corporation this way and we realize that the government is not a corporation for profit, however its products and services to the American people need to be top-quality and done correctly. Unfortunately they are being drowned in political correctness and their own stifling over regulation.
Additionally they are so caught up in the power struggle of primate politics in the United States Senate and the United States Congress that it appears they are ineffective and ineffectual in their endeavors. The citizens of the United States are not so stupid that they do not understand the government cannot do its job and all it does is make excuses after excuses why it has failed the American people.
After 911 it failed to protect the American people and it is also currently failing in just about every single possible endeavor that it is assigned to do. Meanwhile the FBI now says that the biggest threat to American citizens is domestic terrorists. But is the government not so sure that it is creating these terrorists because it fails to look in the mirror and take care of its responsibility and instead makes excuses while podium pushers continue to give lip service to the truth?
Perhaps we should fear domestic terrorists, but why? If they are amongst us why are they not allowed some sort of outlet so we can discuss the issues? If the American people, who actually own government (remember that little fact?) and are not allowed to fix the government then obviously there are going to be some people who take upon themselves to cause a ruckus.
In this case perhaps we should not be so surprised that we may have spurts of civil unrest in groups of people trying to take the law into their own hands (yes the legal system is indeed also over due for overhaul). Perhaps we all need to look in the mirror, both citizens and government alike and agree to work together for a common cause.
You see it just took way to much hard work and effort to build this great civilization and we need not become embroiled over things, when we all want the same thing. Please consider this in 2006. BTW-I do not favor of violence amongst the American people.

Overcome the Effects of Domestic Violence From Your Childhood

Those who grew up within an environment filled with domestic violence could have scars that run deep. The emotional, mental, and physical trauma of childhood that was filled with abuse will wreak havoc on your life if you don't process what happened to you. You'll self-sabotage yourself in many ways from becoming a 'people pleaser' to becoming co-dependent. You'll stay in a vicious cycle until you decide to break it. Have the courage to face your inner demons and free yourself from the bondage of domestic violence. Don't you owe it to yourself?
Overcome the Effects of Domestic Violence from Your Childhood
Stop being a people pleaser. Children who grew up within domestic violence often become people pleasers. They want to make sure everyone likes them and don't enjoy confrontation. This isn't worth it. If someone doesn't like you, so be it. Stop overextending yourself because you believe you can't say "No" when someone needs your help. Politely say "No, I can't help you at this time. Thank you for understanding." Practice saying "No" and before you know it, you'll be a pro at it.
Stop belittling yourself. Growing up within domestic violence probably robbed your self-confidence and self-esteem. To strengthen your self-esteem, say affirmations. Every day you could say, "Every day in every way, I'm getting better and better or I love and approve myself or I love and accept myself." Say affirmations out loud or too yourself. Look in the mirror when you say them and really 'feel' what you're saying.
Take your power back! Stand up for yourself. Don't let others walk all over you. If you have an opinion, voice it. Don't hold back because you feel you may hurt someone's feelings. Say what you feel in a calm and rational manner. Don't speak out of anger -- speak your truth.
Get help from a counselor. If you never had therapy, you may want to consider it. When you speak with a counselor, you'll 'purge' yourself of your emotions of the past. Make sure you don't 'wallow' in the past. Find a counselor that will move your forward in your life rather than keep you stuck.
Release the shame of domestic violence. Children don't raise themselves -- parents do. It wasn't your fault that you grew up in a chaotic environment. A two-year-old can't stand up for herself. She can't stand up and say, "Excuse me, mom and dad, do think beating each other up is a good idea? Do you know what that can do to me emotionally, mentally, and psychologically? You may want to get yourself some help because this isn't a healthy environment." It's not your fault. Learn from it and let it go. Move forward with your life.
Forgive yourself and your abuser(s). Forgiveness is more for you and not your abuser(s). It doesn't say, "What you did to me was all right." Forgiveness releases you from the person and the situation. Remember that your parents were once children. It's almost guaranteed they grew up within domestic violence which is what they knew. If no one taught them anything different, how could they raise you in stable environment? If they didn't question the way they were raised and didn't do the 'inner' work, how could they raise you in a healthy environment?
If you grew up with domestic violence, let it go. Bless the experience (may not be easy for some to do) and take the gifts from it. Perhaps your childhood made you a stronger person. Perhaps you're able to know what you want instead of not knowing what you want. Maybe you're working with children who suffer from abuse and neglect. Take the lessons from your childhood and move forward with your life. Staying in the past isn't healthy for you. Learn all you can from your experience and release it for good.
DEORConsulting is a life coaching, consulting, and education company for teens, parents, guardians, and professionals who work with teens. DEOR stands for Design.Own.Empower.Resolve.
Teens often struggle with the teenage years. With Rebecca as their life coach and consultant, teens can learn the secret to transforming their life for the better. Being a teen today is not like it was back in the day! Teens need extra support to guide them through these years. Rebecca helps teenagers grow in mind, body, spirit and other areas. She provides them with the essential life skills and tools they can use for success.

Domestic Violence Counseling - Physical Vs Psychological Abuse: Who Is the "Real" Victim Here?

Sometimes things are not as they seem when it comes to domestic violence counseling. On the outside looking in, one might think the striking person is the "real" abuser in the relationship. But with closer analysis, it becomes evident that the person holding the control is the psychological abuser.
This psychological abuser may be polite, stable, manipulative and nonaggressive outwardly...and they can even present in therapy as the abused. He/she may be a victim of verbal assault by their partner. But they hold the "control" and they know it. Their intimate partner, however, may not know it.
Instead, this partner who is outwardly aggressive is led to believe that they are the "attacker" and thus the abuser in the relationship. While he/she may be the attacker outwardly, their striking is not about control--to the contrary it's about a lack of control or a loss of control.
Outward Aggression and Abusive Control
What is the difference between outward aggression and abusive control? If you are familiar with the domestic violence literature, you know that domestic abuse is fundamentally about control. And in abusive relationships, violence is recognized as a manifestation of control. It's a means by which control is established and maintained.
Therefore, the assumption might be that the attacker is the "abuser," i.e. the one who holds greater power and control in the relationship. The problem with this simplistic interpretation is that it fails to take into account the etiology of the aggressor's violence.
Some "abusers" (outward aggressors) strike to regain control...but, by and large, they are not the controlling party in the relationship. These individuals characteristically have an intermittent explosive disorder. And their actions, while on the surface are violent, inappropriate and outwardly abusive, they are reflexive in nature.
In other words, these outward aggressors are mindlessly seeking to level the playing field in their intimate relationships. Yet, at their core, they remain under the psychological control of their partners. Their use of violence has more to do with inadequate conflict resolution skills, rather than a pathological addiction to control.
Mental and Psychological Abuse Trumps Violent Aggression
So, which person is the real abuser when one party is verbally aggressive and the other is psychologically controlling? I'd say both individuals are abusers and both are victims in their abusive relationship.
This closer analysis is essential to treatment planning for successful outcome in domestic violence counseling. If you are the labeled abuser in an abusive relationship, be mindful of the more complex dynamics in play. If you are the labeled abused, be honest with yourself in your efforts to remedy the violence in your relationship.
If you are a treatment provider, study the abuse dynamics from the inside out, not from the outside in. Your mindful analysis as such will increase your success in treatment planning for the couples you help in domestic abuse counseling.

Money Matters, Especially When Domestic Abuse is in Divorce Court

"My head is in the sand, and the system is not working." "I'm worried about money, intimidated by financial matters, and don't care about understanding our marital estate." If you can identify with this, then trust that this article is written for YOU.
It's no wonder that the system is not working. You are not working the system. Now, I realize that these words may sound harsh. They are not intended to offend; rather, these words are here to help you better navigate the legal system in your divorce.
Far too often domestic abuse survivors are faced with new challenges on top of the already building stress of divorce and custody proceedings. These challenges call upon their embracing the money matters of their marital estate and of the legal psychiatric system.
But, for many of these women-deep down inside-money doesn't matter. And embracing the finances of their family, much less the financial politics of their divorce, is not a priority.
The net result of their failure to capitalize on an opportunity to make the legal healthcare system work for them is that it doesn't work for them. To the contrary, it works against them-leaving them saying, "the system doesn't work."
Here is something you must do to move through your resistance to learning about how money matters, and ultimately improve your positioning in your divorce and custody proceedings.
1) Ask yourself if there has been any financial discovery taken from your spouse.
2) If there has been no discovery, then ask, why not?
3) Request counsel to arrange a deposition of your spouse on financial matters.
4) If there is no follow through on this request, you have a wealth of information from which to proceed, regarding the financial politics of your case.
5) If there is incomplete...that is grossly insufficient...financial production, you have more information to work with and to add to your strategy.
The most important thing for you to realize is that money does matter. And your understanding of your family's financial picture will open doors for you to better position yourself in your divorce.
F

The Inshore Domestic Model: Is It the New Solution for Enterprises?

Outsourcing has become the one major element used by IT giants to save up production costs. But there are some companies who have understood the social and political backlash of their decisions and did a re-think on their business decisions. That is when the actual cost differences between outsourcing and using domestic IT services came forth. That was when the idea of inshoring was born.
What is Inshoring?
Inshoring generally thought off simply as the antonym or opposite of offshoring. Quite simply inshoring stands for the process when work is outsourced but done domestically. For instance, IT enterprises who work in business nerve centers like New York/LA can move their business domestically within the country, Mississippi/Kentucky instead of moving business processes overseas. Inshoring is a low cost alternative to offshoring because it means you are choosing a domestic vendor over an overseas one and it also means that you are ensuring that you retain jobs within the country itself rather than taking it overseas. While different developing countries like India and China are willingly supplying skilled professionals at cheaper rates, certain US companies opted for the road less traveled by choosing to hire professionals inland rather than going overseas.
Benefits of Inshoring domestically
Domestic outsourcing or inshoring is the new buzzword among the IT enterprises in the US. Here's a list of the different benefits of domestic inshoring can get enterprises:
* Cost of labor reduces by close to 25 to 50% and therefore makes working within US so much more beneficial.
* Inshoring domestic model would mean less risks simply because you can implement security measures in place to ensure no security breaks or misuse of intellectual property
* No after effects of currency fluctuations
* No multi-country legal issues to handle
* You get the laurel of helping encourage small companies and helping spawn new arenas of free enterprise back into the US
* Generous incentives from the government
Is Inshoring the new solution?
So while the inshoring sentiment may be strong and there may seem to be a growing number of organizations which are willing to consider moving their business to second level cities inland, it may be a while before it actually yields great results and helps improve the employment rates in the US. While it may not seem as the universal remedy to end US's employment woes, it definitely can help stimulate local industry and ensure jobs remain inland rather than move outside the country. Inshoring could usher in a whole new and effective way of doing business.

Domestic Violence - Not Just a Man's Problem

Domestic Violence, Even the mention of the words conjures up the larger than life image of some battered, bruised woman on a highway billboard; a day glow orange hot-line number beneath her visage, and some catchy slogan like "love shouldn't hurt."
And no, I am not insensitive to battered women. My heart goes out to any real victim. But the day I see the images of bruised men on those billboards, I'll be less prone to being offended at seeing the images of beaten women being propped up like the starving children you see on your TV at two in the morning; the ones you can feed, clothe and send to Harvard for 12 dollars a month.
The myth is simple and designed for the simple minded. Domestic violence is almost exclusively perpetrated by men against women. Even better, it means brutish thugs pounding the crap out of Mary Poppins for burning the toast. And here and there, that is true. But if you think it defines the problem, or even comes close, you need to take Dr. Phil off your TIVO to-do list and start picking up some real books.
This nonsense didn't spring out of thin air. It was and is the raison d'étre of feminists, in their claim of patriarchal domination and how that extended into the home and family. All their beliefs hinge on the notion that male domination is male dominated. And on the surface it makes sense, especially if you don't think about it. And of course we didn't, so the idea spread like chlamydia in a cat house.
But let us scrutinize it now. You deserve a lot more depth than is offered in a sound bite.
I'll start with some research that most would feel was from a reputable source. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, GA. This is the summary of their findings as published in the American Journal of Public Health, May 2007. First, almost 24% of all relationships had some level of violence. Half of those relationships involved just one of the partners being violent. The other half were reciprocally violent. Now, in relationships where violence was perpetrated by just one person, over 70% of that was committed by the woman.
Did you get that? In all relationships in that particular study, more than 7 out of 10 batterers were female.
Let's look even closer at the data as it relates to relationships where both partners are violent. This half is even more interesting than the first half.
The study concluded that reciprocally violent relationships were most likely to result in injuries, particularly to women. They were also a solid predictor of future, repeated violence for women, but not men. In other words, women who engaged in mutual combat with men were much more likely to have a pattern of instigating repeated assaults. Men's violence was much more likely to be isolated, and, contrary to the repeated assertions of feminists, not likely to be repeated. Now let me sum up those conclusions in a clearer form of English. Relationships where both are violent are more likely to result in the woman getting hurt. Those relationships are also marked by women who are much more likely than men to initiate and maintain that violence in the first place.
We have common expression for much of the men's violence in these situations.
It's called hitting back.
I know, there is no excuse for violence. Ever, some would say. But there is legal, and in the belief of many, moral justification for self defense. Either way, it is a judgment call made after, and only after, an attack has been made. In fairness, it has to be pointed out that this one study, for many reasons, including methodology, can't fairly be generalized to the entire population. And one study alone is easy enough to dispute, even from a sound source. So let's look at a hundred more.
Professor John Archer is a psychologist at The University of Central Lancashire and the esteemed head of the Aggression Research Group at the same university. In his analysis of 100 British and American studies he concludes that women are more likely than men to initiate violence in their relationships and are more likely to be aggressive more frequently. He also addresses the myth that women are only violent as a matter of self defense by reporting that 29% of female college students admitted to physically attacking their boyfriends when no threat was perceived.
I know feminists won't be convinced by this, nor will they by several hundred more studies, but let's look at them anyway. Professor Martin S. Fiebert of the California State University Psychology Department conducted an analysis of 249 scholarly investigations, 194 empirical studies and 55 reviews regarding domestic violence. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies numbers over 241,700 people.
Fiebert's conclusion? Women are as physically aggressive or more physically aggressive in relationships than men. And if you think that the incidence of female on male violence is mitigated by women suffering more injuries at the hands of men, think again. There are widely conflicting studies on this. Some of them place women at greater risk, but many of them place men. If we examine Fiebert's annotated bibliography which covers an exhaustive amount of studies, there are many times more studies cited that show women more likely to inflict serious harm, including with the use of weapons, than are men.
Are there other studies that contradict this? Absolutely. But there is a significant enough body of evidence to make three things patently clear.
1. Domestic violence is not a product of gender. Attributing it to one gender over the other is not only misleading, it actually hinders efforts to address the problem.
2. Society is wildly misinformed about the nature, origins and realities of domestic violence.
3. Most of our legal and political handling of domestic violence is based on the myths and not the realities, leaving us to put all of our resources into half of the problem.
As in so many other ways, we demonstrate a cultural tendency to remake reality, even embrace lies, when the truth about the fairer sex doesn't make them look all that fair.
Now many people of sound mind might well say, "Fine, let's just focus our attention on dealing with abusers and the abused, regardless of the sex." But to say things are not that simple is a monumental understatement.
Richard Gelles is currently a dean at the University of Pennsylvania and holds The Joanne and Raymond Welsh Chair of Child Welfare and Family Violence in the School of Social Policy & Practice. He is an internationally known expert in domestic violence, and was influential in the passage of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997.
Gelles wrote, regarding his work with Suzanne Steinmetz and Murray Strauss, "The response to our finding that the rate of female-to-male violence was equal to the rate of male-to-female violence not only produced heated scholarly criticism, but intense and long lasting personal attacks. All three of us received death threats. Bomb threats were phoned in to conference centers and buildings where we were scheduled to present." Now is it me, or is making terroristic threats of bombing and murder a rather strange way to protest being called violent?
Returning to the evidence, though, it would be easy to make an argument that domestic violence is more a female than a male problem. There are, after all, numerous studies that support that conclusion. But that would be as pointless as the current paradigm, and might result in my car blowing up the next time I start it.
So for those of you screaming for me to quit picking on women and take gender out of the equation, that is precisely what I am doing. And what I am asking you to do, once and for all. If you really believe that all violence is bad and shouldn't be tolerated, then here is what you can do to prove it.
Write to Vice President Biden and tell him to seek an end to the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), the legislation he authored that allocates billions to women victims but leaves men totally out of the picture. Men are, after all, injured by domestic violence, too. 835,000 per year in America alone.
Start holding shelters and social services to account when they have no real programs designed for men. Their failure to do this is institutionalized sexism and needs to go.
Confront police and prosecutors for their actions. Men who call for police help when attacked by their partners are more likely than not to be the one arrested, regardless of the circumstances.
Victims should be helped, not arrested, incarcerated and stigmatized.
Be sure to express your objections to and boycott the media outlets and corporations like Pepsi and Fedex that use men getting abused as a sight gag in their advertising.
When you see or hear a public service announcement that says something like "A woman is abused in her home every 15 seconds," realize that is is a actually a public deception, a convoluted half-truth, based in blind bigotry and callous indifference to the victimization of men.
Those are a few good beginnings, but you can best start by simply and publicly acknowledging what so few seem to know. Domestic violence has nothing to do with what sex you are. It never has. Disinformation is a poor way to address social ills. In fact, it just breeds more of them.
RESEARCH SOURCES FOR THIS ARTICLE
CDC Report- American Journal of Public Health
Martin Fiebert's Annotated Bibliography
John Archer: Sex Differences in Aggression in Real-World Settings: A Meta-Analytic Review
NOTE: Access to Dr. Archers research is fee based!
Abstracts- If you want the complete studies, you have to pay.
Prevalence and Correlates of Physical Aggression During Courtship. ILEANA ARIAS, University of Georgia. MARY SAMIOS, State University of New York at Stony Brook. K. DANIEL O'LEARY, State University of New York at Stony Brook.
Basile, S. (2004). Comparison of abuse by same and opposite-gender litigants as cited in requests for abuse prevention orders
Women who perpetrate intimate partner violence: A review of the literature with recommendations for treatment.
Michelle Carney, School of Social Work, Tucker Hall, University of Georgia. Fred Buttell, Tulane University. and Don Dutton, University of British Columbia, Canada
Quote from abstract: Particular attention is paid to the cultural influences that shape our conceptualization of "domestic violence" and the fact that empirical research suggests that domestic violence has been falsely framed as exclusively male initiated violence.

The Truth About Domestic Violence

Domestic violence, depending upon the perspective, conjures variant and often competing meanings. It may signify a political objective to a politician seeking stiffer penalties for abusers. Perhaps domestic violence represents hatred for an adult male whom was victimized as a child. It may even mean a biased belief from an upper-middle-class woman, refuting that domestic violence transpires in indigent societies only. For me, it represents a predominantly ignored sociological problem facing every nation, socio-economic status, religion, race and sexual orientation. Despite the amount of court cases clogging our Criminal Justice System, domestic violence seems to be written-off as a rarity or victim provocation. Just recently, an in-law's comment "She must have done something to deserve it" to my description of a victim suffering minor brain damage because of multiple and prolonged strangulations by her abuser stupefied me. My shock to this insensitive comment bewildered my in-law. In fact, many reading this article have been abused at some point in time in their life.
I work as a shelter advocate at a local domestic violence shelter. Though my 2 and-a-half years doesn't qualify me as an expert nor a veteran, I've witnessed enough humanity to realize a full compass of emotions. It's certainly no picnic taking a crisis call form a distraught mother whose daughter was murdered by an ex-boy friend. Just as heart wrenching is working with a client whose face and body bare witness to frenzied abuse in the way of multiple lacerations and cigarette burns. It's necessary to understand that domestic violence is only one of many issues facing the majority of shelter clients. Alcohol/drug addition, lack of education, past/childhood victimization, poor financial management, unemployment - to name a few - plague most shelter clients.
When I first began, I believed it would be easy to detach myself from theses situations. After all, I received an exemplary education and training that honed this. Detachment at first came easy, I prided myself on this. Encountering each successive situation, however, seemed to soften me. Soon enough, my emotional spectrum turned from detached professional to "man-hater." After all, wasn't because of them that domestic violence. I truly felt compassion and anger for these victims, and I would often berate myself for not doing more, not advocating enough. It was during this time in my emotional spectrum that a group of us founded a transitional living housing for women and children exiting crisis shelters. After all, most victims return to their abusers because they can't locate affordable housing. My co-founding efforts would definitely address this need . . . right?
As months transpired, I continually witnessed women and children returning to their abuser, despite the transitional living program and a litany of other social service agencies and programs geared towards this segment of the population. It almost seemed many clients rarely utilized these agencies, and if they didn't, most wouldn't complete the programs to assist them in becoming independent. To watch a mother work very hard to successfully secure employment for the first time in years, as well as locate safe and affordable housing, and then to have to be the advocate to inform her she needs to leave shelter as illicit drugs were found in her room is nothing short of frustrating. Shelter clients with no history of drug and/or alcohol abuse is the rare statistic. Taking all of this in, I still told myself there's something I'm missing. Something I'm forgetting to do. Something I'm forgetting to say . . . why is my advocating for victims' rights and independence failing?
As I was in the process of wrapping-up my co-founding responsibilities, I experienced a profound epiphany; successful advocacy required survivors to work harder than me at becoming independent. Advocacy is about presenting options and letting survivors choose their path, regardless of any obvious outcomes. Advocacy is accepting, unconditionally and without judging, the opinions and choices these survivors make.
Almost overnight my "man-hater" emotional spectrum status registered anger at myself for being so naive and irritation towards victims making repeated mistakes. After all, abusers are successful because they have participants that enable their behavior. The tragedy in the cycle of domestic violence isn't just that a victim subjects him/herself to repeated and elevated levels of violence, it's also the truly innocent victims that are repeatedly exposed to danger - the children. Not only are children victims of an abuser's actions, they're also victims of poor choices made on their behalf.
It would take months of journaling and a purging of emotions before I softened. Although I'm no longer angry with myself or irritated with victims, I can't deny that I was naive. The quintessential truth about domestic violence is that it will always exist; there is not a shortage of willing aggressors nor compliant participants. At this stage in my work I've heard and witnessed every argument about why so many return and endure abuse, many of which are undeniable points that do make leaving abusive environments extremely difficult. The fact remains, however, these victims have made very poor choices.
These aforementioned survivors are the stories and faces of domestic violence, and despite a gamut of readings on my emotional compass, I do enjoy advocating for them. Knowing that victims have made bad decisions, I also recognize that as humans we are called to serve others, regardless if our advocacy efforts change their life. Every human is worthy of dignity and respect, even if efforts are done in vain. My work in domestic violence has taught me that being an advocate is extremely emotional, frustrating, agonizing . . . . I guess the pursuit of justice is rarely an easy path.

Domestic Violence, Gender Discrimination

Personal Safety is a fundamental right of life - the right to live without fear of any harm or danger to you and your family, both immediate and extended. No one has the right to harm, abuse or threaten anyone else and a victim has the right to make a formal complaint and seek action against the offender.
"Domestic violence is any incident of threatening behaviour, violence or abuse (be it physical or emotional) between adults who are or have been in a relationship together, or between family members, regardless of gender or sexuality. The types of behavior frequently encountered in domestic violence are physical attacks, sexual attacks, psychological abuse, and the destruction of property or pets".
Domestic Violence and abuse "consists of acts committed in the context of an adult intimate relationship. Domestic violence is purposeful and instrumental behavior directed at achieving compliance from, or control over the abused party".
It is one of the most under-reported crimes worldwide and occurs across all strata of society. Although statistics and analytical figures point that domestic abuse consists mainly of violence by men against women, it is not restricted to these circumstances. In some cases men too are abused by their partners. However, it is shocking that globally domestic violence accounts for 16% of all violent crimes and 77% of victims are women. It is equally shocking to read that most victims have suffered repeated abuse and continue enduring physical violence for several years before they make a formal complaint. Unfortunately, in most cases, children are at the receiving end of abuse within homes. It is also equally relevant here to note that most women do not report violence or abuse for fear of harassment to their children.
Domestic violence in homes occurs if a spouse is being subjected to abuse by current or former spouse, parent or child. Even if a person is harassed, threatened, stalked, beaten, freedom of movement restrained, or property destroyed; then all these too constitute domestic violence. A victim of domestic violence does not have to be in a marital or other relationship.
Attitudes that are reflected by society contribute greatly to domestic violence. Long held notions that a wife is the "property of a husband and he can do what he likes to keep her in check" have been the cause for delayed action in cases involving domestic violence. Adding to this already aggravating situation is the view that 'domestic violence' does not strictly come under the purview of 'police investigation'. Archaic laws like "the rule of thumb" existed till very recent times.
Till the 1970s, most cases involving domestic violence were settled by mediation by third parties without achieving any desired results. Police response to domestic violence has a pathetic record globally.
Family Law guidelines view such violations seriously and advise victims on the action they need to take and also on what will happen once their application is received. It has also enforced the 'right of protection to women irrespective of status' as a constitutional fundamental right.
Several legal cases in the US and Europe have highlighted the plight of victims of domestic violence as well as landmark judgements that have been pronounced. Today, many police agencies adopt mandatory arrest policies enforcing the view that society should view domestic violence as a criminal offence. Only strict action and stringent punishment can provide safety and solace to victims of domestic violence.
In India's context, it is relevant to sit up and take notice of the increasing number of incidents that are classified as "honour killing" in recent times. Thanks to media exposure, more numbers of incidents are highlighted and the world at large is witness to some gruesome crimes, which are horrifying to say the least. How could family, kith & kin kill another member of the family brutally just to avenge 'honour' and 'status'? What is this mindset? Even the most expert of psychologists may have to delve deep into their knowledge and expertise to come up with plausible explanations and reasoning. For the record, murders are committed of girls who elope with boyfriends; or marry a man of their choice, outside of their own community or caste, against the parents' wishes; or decide to have a harmless cup of coffee or an ice cream with a classmate of the opposite gender.
Some of these violent crimes are aided and abetted by so-called communal and religious bodies, obviously with backing from some political party that they pledge allegiance to. One such agency took upon itself to "marry off" any two people of the opposite sex who were seen out in the open on Valentine's Day. Utterly shameless and perverted thinking of the worst kind. Another local administrative body suggests that girls 'must be' married off at the age of 15 and boys at the age of 18 to prevent them going 'astray' and indulging in shameful activity. A minister went on national television to say that 'governance cannot trample and set laws that oppose traditional beliefs and mindsets'. What a myopic and absolutely shameful viewpoint!!! Such negative trends will have far reaching consequences on a society's growth and development. Elsewhere, governments are providing incentives to families to educate girl children because it is not believed without reason, that if you "educate and liberate a woman with knowledge and confidence, you are educating and liberating a family". Females of any species have that innate ability to strive and overcome obstacles especially when it comes to protecting and providing for the wellbeing of their families. Perhaps nature's design is not without purpose because every family, even in the poorest of villages across India, that has a literate girl child has seen innumerable benefits being absorbed into their lives in many ways.
Another obvious example of the success of women's liberation is the micro financing schemes introduced in Third World economies which is ample proof of what women can achieve for themselves, and in turn their families, if they are given the right opportunities and assistance. This success has been a lifeline for millions of families around the globe transforming communities and towns into hives of action and sustenance fuelled by women, cutting across language, regional, religious and communal barriers.
There are huge implications from these positive results and vast lessons for the rest of the world to learn. Hopefully, now that the transformation has arrived, it will evolve to engulf the whole world.

Domestic Violence - Someone You Know is Being Abused

The term "I love her to death" has a gruesome reality behind it. One in four women has experienced some form of domestic violence. Imagine every fourth woman on the street as a victim of domestic abuse. A domestic abuse lawyer never has to look for work. A domestic violence lawyer wishes the recession would hit her business. The reverse is generally the case; a recession increases the occurrence of domestic violence. Sadly, there is far more violence within the home then can easily be imagined.
Depending on the survey, it is estimated that 600,000 to 6 million women are victims of domestic violence every year in the United States. Domestic violence towards men is estimated to be between 100,000 to 1 million a year. Gathering accurate statistics on domestic violence and abuse can be challenging for a number of reasons. The definition of abuse can be a wide or narrower definition depending on the survey. The motivation and willingness to respond openly and honestly can also depend on the survey and the techniques for gathering information. Many people are frightened or ashamed to admit abuse. However, by any definition or survey the levels of domestic abuse and violence are staggering. While the form of abuse may vary the reasons for it seldom does. Domestic abuse is about gaining control over someone else in a relationship. This is done in any number of ways.
When one person wishes to control another in relationship they often resort to several different forms of abuse. One form of abuse that is probably under reported is psychological or emotional abuse. This often involves humiliating and diminishing the other person, attacking their confidence. Often a person trying to take or maintain control in relationship will be quick to blame making preemptive strikes to keep the other person on the defensive. Blame is often used to avoid criticism or consequences. Many abusers will even blame the victim for causing the abuse.
Another form of emotional control is isolation. An abuser will make an effort to remove the victim from contact with family and friends. The abuser will often sabotage outside relationships, making it difficult for the victim to have a support network. This is often done through guilt, threats and manipulation, sometimes so artfully accomplished the victim believes it was their own doing and desire.
Physical intimidation includes verbal abuse, breaking of physical objects, throwing items, and hitting, kicking, slapping and biting. Any form of unwanted and forced physical contact is abuse. In 1994, 37% of women seeking medical attention in an emergency room for violence related injuries reported being injured by their domestic partner, boyfriend or girlfriend.
Who are the victims? Anyone walking down the street may be a victim of domestic abuse. Domestic violence crosses racial, economic, gender, religious and political lines. Many cases of abuse involve reciprocated violence where both partners become abusive. Domestic violence continues to be a dangerous social problem that requires attention. A domestic violence charge is a serious offense. These charges can negatively impact your life.

Domestic Violence - What You Must Know When Seeking Help

The Battered Women's Movement and Clinical Psychology are as far apart as the North and South Pole. However, many people outside of these circles/disciplines believe domestic abuse treatment and advocacy are sub-specialties of the practice of psychology. Not at all so!
After I fled from the danger I lived in Chicago, I retreated into a life of solace and wrote a book detailing my experience of family violence and legal domestic abuse. Creating that publication was the most amazing experience of my life-right up there with the birth of a child. It was my fourth child.
With the enthusiasm of a child, I approached individuals in the domestic violence arena, eager to share what I had learned and produced in the manuscript. Initially, I was not received well and couldn't understand why, until an individual from the inner circle of the Battered Women's Movement shared the inside politics with me.
"You will have a hard time breaking into this line of work," she said, "because you are a psychologist." Funny thing is I thought this was my asset, until she helped me realized it was my liability among battered women.
She explained that historically the psychologists were used in re-victimizing survivors of domestic abuse at the bequest of their perpetrators. And over the years, actually decades, they became the enemies of battered women.
I have since learned that this is understandably so, especially for women residing in domestic violence shelters. It is estimated that over 90% of women going through the abuse shelter system will be "certified" (i.e. blessed with a psychiatric diagnosis) by virtue of their navigating the mental health care system-while in route to safety-as a survivor of domestic violence.
This truly disturbed me, as a practicing psychologist and domestic abuse survivor. Even more disturbing was the fact that I could find little to no domestic violence curricula offered in psychological training.
In no way am I suggesting that one not seek the services of domestic abuse advocacy; to the contrary. I strongly believe in the work of domestic abuse advocates. However, I recognize that when utilizing domestic abuse advocacy, one must be mindful of the importance of also securing the expertise of a mental health professional, authentically knowledgeable in domestic violence.
The front line treatment for domestic violence and the actual practice of professional psychology are truly as far apart as the automotive industry and the practice of dentistry. I vowed to commit myself to helping bridge this huge knowledge and service gap, such that professional psychology and general healthcare delivery serves as an extension of domestic abuse advocacy.

Political Correctness - Can We Survive?

Today's politically correct world is hindering the choices our politicians are making in Washington. In fact, Congress is tied up in grid lock while nothing gets done! Partisan bickering will unfortunately continue until the presidential election.
As some of the defining issues of our time are being debated on Capitol Hill, why is it that year after year the American public elects politicians who empower change and yet we find ourselves frustrated and angry at the incompetence of both parties.?
Why? The reason is that political correctness has risen to new levels never before seen. As an example, according to National poles released yesterday, the American public agrees that more drilling and exploration for oil domestically is a vital & necessary step to begin reducing the price of gas at the pump. By drilling right now, Citizens would see a slight change in the price short term, but innovation into alternative energy means is required for a long term solution.
The Democratic Party has had a long standing policy of anti-drilling. Since the late 70's, America hasn't developed ANY refineries, nor has the US Government expanded oil production. Meanwhile foreign dependence on imported oil has been the rule. The problem is that our politicians continually fight for political power and their main focus is getting "RE-Elected". This continued cycle has hindered the People's will and views.
Today's politicians are now literally being run by special interest groups. From environmental groups to labor unions to the lobbyist. These types of groups have become evermore powerful as we watch our politicians "dance" when they pull their strings. This is why we hear so many different positions on any one issue facing our nation.
Weather its the Republicans not admitting there's a problem concerning global warming, to Democrats dening domestic oil production, the problems America faces in the 21st century need to be dealt with concise action and at the will of the American public. We cannot afford to continue the path of political correctness.
When will the American public stand up and demand our politicians take action. Somehow we've forgotten that we're Americans first not just republicans or democrats. As interest groups continue to divide our nation with left or right mentalities, our nation suffers due to the lack of action. Its no wonder the President and Congress's approval rating is the lowest in history.
For the RIGHT, take a look around, the polar ice caps are melting at astonishing levels, violent storms continue to ravish the world. From tornados in the mid west to tsunami's in the east to rising economies in India & China. Pollution is making a mark on the environment. It's not rocket science letting us know "Mother Nature" is angry. Global Warming exist, you just have to open your eyes.
For the LEFT, continuing to preach "We need to Develop new energy" as a solution to the high gas prices will not help in the short run. The technology exists to drill for oil offshore as well as Anwar and other areas. The environmental impact can be minimized and carried out with efficiency. The will of the people say Drill Now, and yet you deny the plausibility, America's future is at stake!
Finally, the true power of the American People is not merely electing a President, Congressman or Senator, it is the persistent direct communication we make with our elected officials.
Here are a few words that may resonate, If you don't vote, don't complain. If you don't complain, don't expect change. If you expect change, change your communications. Direct contact with elected officials is the fastest way to solve America's Challenges.

Political Correctness and Fathers' Rights

Social movements have the habit of empowering the people who least deserve it and coming down hardest on the people who likewise deserve it the least. When Soviet Union fell, it was not the real wrongdoers - the corrupt bureaucrats, the KGB, the military hazers - that suffered the most, but the honest, dedicated, hard-working people such as teachers, doctors and scientists. So it comes as no surprise that the gender movements of the last two decades - both feminism and reaction against feminism - have likewise had similar results.
When political correctness swept America, I, as someone who'd lived in both Soviet Union and America, knew how thoroughly it was misconstrued. It maliciously attacked the very kind of men that are inclined to be sympathetic toward women - the men in liberal cities, liberal academia, feminism-influenced cultures - while doing nothing to change the conservative cultures that are not sympathetic toward women's empowerment and believe in violence and oppression toward women as a natural way of life. It went after love, after beauty, after romance, after sexuality, claiming these things ridiculously to be the reason for the oppression of women, while doing nothing to address the real reasons for oppression of women - belief that women are evil, belief that the man must be head of the family, belief that controlling the woman is masculinity, and belief that women are to blame for the world's suffering or are "whores" or are "sluts" or are "bitches" or are exploiters of men. They hyper-focused on minor issues while completely ignoring real issues. Meanwhile they did nothing whatsoever to address real wrongs facing women - the biggest of these wrongs having always been, and remaining, real brutality and real oppression in which a vast chunk of married women around the world and in the West live daily; a real wrong that they either ignored or for which they blamed its victims.
The feminism of 1990s resulted in many men losing their jobs, being robbed of their income, or put away in prison, for things as minor as telling a female co-worker that she was pretty, or for accusations that were proven untrue. These men were very rarely real, severe abusers. The real abusers, and especially the cultures that encourage real abuses, were not touched by political correctness. They sneered at it, despised it, proclaimed it ungodly or sissie or foolish, and then, in the following decade, took over and went, not after excesses of political correctness, but after women's rights as such.
In the decade of Bush, Bin Laden, and Eminem, women came under a huge assault from all directions. And just as in case of 1990s feminism, it did not touch the real wrongdoers such as the world's Catherine McKinnons, many of whom remained in quite comfortable state in liberal cities or in the academia, but rather came down hardest on the shoulders of good women - women who liked men enough to be with men and were by the men they'd elected horribly punished for having made the error of liking them. Here are just some of the more publicized cases.
"Candice," a nurse in Kansas, lost her child to a man who'd broken her head so badly that she needed forty stitches. The brute who did this got full custody. "Leslie," an engineer in Indiana, not only lost her children to her severely violent ex-husband, but is now living out of a truck because her whole income has been garnished to pay child support to that man. "Jeanne", a resident of Richmond, Virginia, who has been exposing abuses in family courts after having left a severely brutal relationship, has had many attempts on her life and has a price on her head. In Australia, a man named Arthur Freeman threw his four-year-old daughter off Melbourne's West Gate Bridge to her death, even though the child's mother had repeatedly warned the court of his violence. On average, four women and nine children in America die daily as a result of domestic violence. In allied countries such as Australia, it is worse.
The name of decency - and secrecy of family courts - has been used as an accomplice to these and many other related wrongdoings. Both have been used to silence the truth and to allow real, severe crimes against women and children to go on unchecked. Meanwhile the name of family has likewise been used to maintain these real, severe abuses, and to severely persecute any woman or child who tries to get away from them or to expose the truth of what actually happens behind closed doors. So now, a fake disorder known as Parental Alienation Syndrome is used against women in case either woman or the child reports sexual abuse or real brutality, and the children are given fully into the custody of the rapist or the batterer.
Because of the abuses of the political correctness, there has been a strong constituency not only against political correctness, but against women's rights and against women period. Men's movement - also known as father's rights movement - led by such figures as Glenn Sacks in Canada, Ash Patil and Barry Williams in Australia, and the Fatherhood Foundation in the United States - has been spreading misogyny and deception, making such claims as that 90% of mothers are abusive; that all women are liars; and that patriarchial nuclear family is the only viable way to raise children, nevermind that the most successful man in the world - the President of United States - was raised by a single mother. In Australia, a group known as the Black Shirts has been picketing and assaulting women who've left severely violent husbands. There have been women collaborating with these men as well - mostly older women who are not subject to family violence but want the freedom for their sons to inflict it on their daughters-in-law. All of this, in the name of family.
The correct response to these people is that a man who cares about his family would not be beating his wife or raping his children, and that their use of the name of family or "family values" to justify such behavior is abuse of the name of family and of the concept of family values. A man who genuinely is a good father will not need such movements on his side, and a man who does is not a good father. So calling such groups men's rights or fathers' rights is a misnomer. The correct name for the above is wife beaters' movement, in much the same way as correct name for 1990s political correctness is not women's empowerment but harpies' empowerment - both, at the expense of women and men who are neither of the preceding.
As the excesses and wrongs of 1990s feminism became obvious to more people, feminism lost much of its say in society. But that is not the right course to take either. Clearly there is a need to confront violence against and oppression of women, and there is very much a need now for a better construed feminism. A feminism that recognizes the woman's right to be feminine and to be with a man, while supporting women against men who would abuse them and their children, is the feminism that is sorely needed right now and for as long as there are men in the world who think that violence against women is their God-given right or their masculine entitlement. And it is time that both women and men of goodwill work together to create and to apply this real, positive feminism that actually has a possibility of improving life for the women of the world.

The Domestic Scenario of South Asian Regions

There is no denying the fact that out of the countries of South Asian Regions, India as a mainstay power of South Asia articulate a premeditated unity of the region and regard as the safekeeping of the diminutive regional actors as essential to its own safety measures. It takes into consideration the latter to be the exclusive strategic backyard of India. On the other hand, the small states tend to recognize India as the most important source of peripheral menace to their defence.
The miscellany in law-making systems customary problems in South Asia. India and Sri Lanka have conventionally accomplished sales rep democracy. The Indian know-how of democracy has had severe tests in recent years, since the urgent situation in respect of the period of 1975-77; while Sri Lanka has had to conciliation democratic norms more recently as a result of ethnic crisis. The two are even so considered relative success stories among Third World democracies. Pakistan and Bangladesh, predominantly the latter, have in the commencement of the 1990s witnessed sweeping democratic changeover in their domestic scenario. However, in a longer term standpoint, both of these countries have always been vacillation between military dominance in politics and democratic conducting tests. Nepal's transition to democracy is also perceived yet to be firmly rooted.
Bhutan has been go-getting to retain the authority of dominion as the dominant foundation, while the Maldives has been practising one-party rule and in due sense inconsistency in classes of people is manifested in values and ideology pursued in governance and statecraft. The Indian political system is professedly a blend of democracy, socialism and secularism, though these lofty ideals have remained far from fully translated into reality. Most significant is the recent trend towards increased influence of Hindu fundamentalism in Indian politics. Bangladesh started off with more or less same principles as the fundamentals in statecraft, but it later changed course towards increasing influence of religion, an issue on which a national harmony has yet to materialize. Pakistan has Islam as the basis of its opinionated system, while the Maldives is an Islamic culture with moderately less sway of religion in politics. Nepal remains under Hindu sway whilst Bhutan and Sri Lanka are Buddhist societies.
The argument as has been fashioned advantageously among the South Asian states is diverse too and as such the nature of the conflict between India and Sri Lankan is different from that of the conflict between India and Bangladesh, Pakistan or Nepal. Some conflicts are ethnic, others are religious, location or border related. For this reason India's insistence on bilateralism gets priority, and India takes advantages of settlement of those conflicts as per its wishes. One important dimension of the conflict is that all are Indo-centric. Pakistan has accepted the superior military strength of India; it has shown no readiness to curtail its freedom of action as an independent state. Although Bangladesh has limited scope of independence, for Nepal and Bhutan it is more difficult to resist or say anything at all about such regional security doctrine. For example, Sri Lanka failed to resist Indian hegemonic attitude when in 1977 the Jayewardene government opted for a free-market economy, making Sri Lanka increasingly receptive to western capital and technology. At that time the relationship with Pakistan improved dramatically. The Jayewardene government virtually tried to distance itself from India. India then took the opportunity of the Tamil separatist issue to put pressure on Sri Lanka. Apart from sheltering and arming the Tamil militants, the Indian ruling class blew out of proportion some of the features of Sri Lanka's relationship with United States and Pakistan. India cannot apply this type of hegemonic attitude towards Pakistan. For India, SAARC has been both a challenge as well as an opportunity.
In view of the above, it is evident that the challenge has lain in the communal pressures of the neighbours, and the chance in the potential of making the neighbours look inward, into the region, for their developmental and safety needs. India has pursued a two-pronged stratagem to press forward its regional targets through SAARC. One has been to slowly but surely push the growth and deepening of the Integrated Programme of Action so as to cover core economic areas like trade, industry and investment. The idea was to expand and consolidate infrastructure and social linkages at various levels in the midst of South Asian countries and to create a basis for interdependence. This in the long run could weaken the centrifugal tendencies of its neighbours and thus narrow down the discrepancy towards SAARC's ties with other regional organizations.

From Political Asylum to Domestic Asylum

The United States Department of Homeland Security granted a domestic violence victim asylum. Rody Alvarado fled her native Guatemala in 1995, and entered the United States illegally. After arriving in California, Alvarado sought asylum in the United States. Her request for asylum was granted after a 14 year legal battle.
Historically, asylum seekers were required to prove governmental persecution as a result of political beliefs, race, religion, nationality or membership in a particular group. What distinguishes the Alvarado case is that she did not allege persecution by a government but rather by an individual, her husband, against whom she proved a ten year pattern of brutal physical and sexual abuse commencing at age 16 when she married him. Alvarado's attorney convinced the immigration court that Guatemalan police and judges accepted the brutality as a tolerated cultural norm and gave her no protection whatsoever. Alvarado left her husband and relocated several times within Guatemala. Each time she relocated she was found by her husband and beaten and sexually abused again and again.
In a later unrelated case, a Mexican woman whose name has been withheld is seeking asylum out of fear that her physically and sexually abusive male domestic partner would murder her. In its court filings, the Obama administration possibly opened the door for women living in foreign countries that are victims of severe physical and sexual abuse to seek and be granted asylum, broadening the prior Bush administration's position. That foreign victim of severe and repeated physical and/or sexual abuse must demonstrate their subordination to the abuser as nothing more than an article of personal property, that the abuse is widely accepted in their country of origin, that they are unable to obtain protection through law enforcement or the judiciary of their country or by relocating elsewhere in that country. Policies and regulations in this context of asylum are expected to develop.
In seeking any immigrant or protected status on the United States, it is prudent to retain an experienced immigration attorney.
Christopher J. Stoll is an attorney who has assisted the immigrant community for over 25 years. He is licensed to practice in the immigration courts of all 50 states.