Violence

I considered myself smart, independent and tough. Prior to the abusive relationship I was in, I excelled in school, bought my first property at age 22, and supported myself and my child as a single mom without anyone’s help — all while putting myself through college. I thought the only missing piece was a partner at home and that finding “the one” would mean living happily ever after. I never thought one Friday evening, just a couple hours after making dinner and planning an evening at home, I would be lying on a table in the emergency room, having my face x-rayed to see if any bones were broken.

The relationship that looked so good from the outside had been a lie. It might sound strange, but I never felt sorry for myself after that night. I felt tremendous relief that things had gotten bad enough to jar me into action, to take back my power and begin again. But rebuilding my life after domestic violence was a long and arduous process. I felt a deep sense of shame, having allowed things to go so wrong. I was penniless and embroiled in bitter legal battles for years afterward, a common form of control that abusers use to keep their victims stuck.

One thing that saved my sanity during that period was developing a healthy fitness habit at the ballet barre. Barre classes are designed by former German ballerina Lotte-Berk. They fuse ballet conditioning, Pilates, yoga and calisthenics. Diving into the realm of mind-body fitness became much more than a stress release. This graceful workout cultivated the and strength I so badly needed.

Related: 

The more I practiced, the stronger my body and mind became. I was able to leave my anxiety at the door during each one-hour class, providing me more clarity and resilience to tackle the challenges I was facing, and eventually, to realize my calling as an entrepreneur. When I trained to become a barre teacher, at first it was a way to earn money while I figured out what was next for my life. I had no idea the process would uncover a deeper calling that would one day lead me to open my own studios.

Related:

As I worked though my own healing, gaining confidence each time I got up in front of a barre class and used my voice, I went from feeling isolated to realizing I was not alone. When I became brave enough to share my story of domestic violence and recovery on my blog, I began to receive messages from women of all walks of life who had worked through similar situations.

I’ll never forget one woman, a high-powered executive who appeared to be at the peak of success in her career, who shared with me that she was essentially a prisoner in her own home. She enlisted help from a therapist, lawyer and local law enforcement to eject her abuser from the house, but she kept postponing out of fear for her safety. According to the , on average, nearly 20 people per minute are physically abused by an intimate partner in the United States. During one year, this equates to more than 10 million women and men. It truly can happen to anyone.

I want every woman in the midst of a struggle to know that she is not alone, that she is more powerful than she has yet imagined. This was the driving force behind , the business I have built over the past three years. The strong and supportive communities at our Barre & Soul studio locations help empower clients to take control of their mind-body wellness and in turn, their lives. This mission is resonating, and we’re continuing to grow rapidly.

I couldn’t be more proud of how far I’ve come — with studios from Portsmouth, N.H., to Providence, R.I., and dozens of dedicated staff who share in my mission to help women become their strongest, most centered and fulfilled selves. When we read success stories in the media, we’re usually seeing the highlight reel, not the behind-the-scenes. As a leader, I feel deeply that it is crucial to be authentic and expose our trials and tribulations. So I continue to tell my story and explain that my road prior to achieving success with Barre & Soul wasn’t an easy one.

Related:

I never planned for any of it — losing my self-esteem, feeling like I didn’t deserve better, ending up in the E.R., fighting in court for orders of protection, uprooting my life and the lives of my children, relying on crisis centers, rebuilding from rock bottom, feeling ashamed of this secret disaster my life had become. What I didn’t know then — that I want you to know if you are being abused — is that it doesn’t mean anything about you or your potential to succeed and thrive.

The best advice I can give you is to tell someone. I know you are ashamed and afraid of the battle ahead. Just tell someone. The more people who know, the less likely you are to ever go back. Your past does not dictate your future or limit your potential. There is so much waiting for you. I felt so ashamed and unworthy. Now I feel brave, confident and successful. You deserve the beautiful life that is waiting for you once you take that first courageous step, and speak up.

If people around the world were surveyed and asked to define terrorism, the answers would be seemingly endless. It has been said, “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. ” From culture to culture, people view terrorism in a different way. An inherent definition of terrorism would be the act of creating terror, but not everyone is terrified of the same thing. So how then is it possible to come up with one definition for the word?

“A 2003 study by Jeffrey Record for the US Army quoted a source that counted 109 definitions of terrorism that covered a total of 22 different definitional elements.

•  In the book Understanding Terrorism, the author Anthony Marsella comes up with “four problems associated with efforts to define terrorism today:

(a) there have been historical changes in the definition, (b) media and states have been inconsistent in their use of the term, (c) there are multiple definitions across agencies even within a single country such as the United States, and (d) there is international disagreement on the definition of the term. ”

• Some views of terrorism say that it must have political goals, while other do not believe this.

Some views state that it must be innocents or civilians who are the victims, while other definitions do not believe this. Another argument is whether or not the terrorists must be non-state actors. Definitions are different based on whether they were created for legal purposes or international agencies. In this paper, I will go through some of the different arguments in order to provide a clearer sense of what terrorism truly means in this day in age. Most books written on terrorism begin by giving a definition of the word in the author’s opinion in order to put it into context for the remainder of the book.

The entire first chapter of Bruce Hoffman’s book Inside Terrorism is dedicated to trying to define terrorism. Terrorism now seems to be a part of our everyday life. It appears as though every act of violence is perceived as being ‘terrorism. ’ Every time violence occurs people immediately think terrorism. The term terrorism is so hard to define and there is so much controversy about how to define it that it is easy to make the assumption that all violence is terrorism. At the same time, because of the controversy, many media sources are reluctant to use the word. Instead, they give attacks different titles.

The Oxford Canadian Dictionary defines terrorism as the “systematic employment of violence and intimidation to coerce a government or community, especially into acceding to specific political demands. ” This definition might satisfy Hoffman because he believes it must be stressed that terrorism is the use or threat of violence to achieve a political aim. Without a political aim, there cannot be terrorism. Nor can there be terrorism without the threat or use of violence. Hoffman believes it is difficult to define terrorism because of its ever-changing meaning throughout history.

A factor that makes defining terrorism difficult is that the definition has changed over time. The original definition of the word is no longer the definition used today. The word originally gained support during the French Revolution as part of the “Reign of Terror. ” The purpose was to scare people in order to prevent further revolutions from occurring. The terror was created by the state. Although the definition has changed since the “Reign of Terror,” there are two points that are similar in today’s definition. First, the regime de la terreur was neither random nor indiscriminate, as terrorism is often portrayed today, but was organized, deliberate, and systematic. ”Terrorists plan out their attacks, they are not random or spur of the moment. Targets in present day are often chosen based on what will receive the most media attention. “Second, its goal and its very justification was the creation of a “new and better society” in place of a fundamentally corrupt and undemocratic politically system. ” Simply put, terrorist attacks occur in order to achieve a political goal.

Later, during the Industrial Revolution, Carlo Pisacane argued that the most effective way to publicize his cause was through violence, and that no other means would generate the same amount of attention. This revolutionary-style terrorism remained up until the First World War. “By the 1930s the meaning of “terrorism” had changed again and was used to describe the practices of mass repression employed by totalitarian states and their dictatorial leaders against their own citizens. ” After the Second World War, the term returned to the original connation of a revolutionary type act.

Up until the 1960s, terrorism was largely considered to be domestic. In the late 1960s and 1970s, terrorism began to become more international. It is important to discuss the three types of terrorism: international, domestic and “new terrorism. ” Domestic terrorism is terrorism that takes place against people within your country. International terrorism is terrorism that takes place against people by a group that is not native to the country. New terrorism may have no political aims, but instead are more religious based and mainly concern themselves with destruction.

The textbook The Globalization of World Politics states that there are “three factors that led to the birth of transnational terrorism: the expansion of air travel; the wider availability of televised news coverage; and the broad common political and ideological interests. ”These terrorist attacks initially took form in airplane hijackings, but as security tightened up, the terrorists instead chose American targets in foreign countries. Since the September 11th attacks on the United States, international terrorism is mainly what people think of when they think of terrorism.

Those attacks were very publicized and had a huge impact on international relations. As well as understanding the different types of terrorism, it is also important to distinguish the difference between a terrorist, a guerrilla and a ‘freedom fighter. ’“The freedom fighter conducts a campaign to liberate his people from dictatorial oppression, gross disarmament, or the grip of an occupying power. ” A guerrilla is fighting against a military and most importantly the terrorist goes after civilians. Any group can use terrorism to achieve their goals.

In the book Terrorism: The New World Order, Fotion et al explain that there are narrow and broad views of terrorism. The narrower views insist that victims of terrorism must be innocent. A problem with the narrower view is that although it is most often innocents who are targeted by terrorists, they did not see a distinction. Whether they target a military organization or innocent civilians, they are performing terrorist acts. Their objective does not change based on who they are attacking from one day to the next. Their goal is to demoralize their opponent. It is very hard to differentiate the difference between a guerrilla and a terrorist.

Although a guerrilla would be attacking military personnel, they could be labelled differently based on their intentions. They could be attacking merely to kill and weaken their opponents or they could be attacking in order to scare the opponents into possibly retreating. By defining terrorism as only attacking civilians, it makes analyzing terrorism a lot more difficult. Fotion et al discussed the paradigmatic scheme, which represents the most generally accepted view of a terrorist attack.  “An attacking group (or individual) victimizes some group of people by harming or killing them.

The attackers then escape either before, during or after the victimizing event. Others, seeing what has happened to the victim group become terrorized (frightened, anxious, etc. ). We will call this the immediate effect or result of the process of creating victims. While in their state of terror, they pressure their government to change its political outlook in a way that satisfies the goals of the attackers and, most likely, displeases the government and many of its people. This pressure and resulting changes count as the secondary effect or result of the victimization process.  The book Terrorism: The New World Order points out that the word terrorism is seen as having negative connotation, so those who are often labelled as such, would try and find a definition that does not apply to them.  “Those labelled “terrorists” by their opponents rarely identify themselves as such, and typically use other terms or terms specific to their situation, such as separatist, freedom fighter, liberator, revolutionary, vigilante, militant, paramilitary, guerrilla, rebel or any similar-meaning word in other languages and cultures. In the past, people did not hide behind these labels and proclaimed themselves as terrorists and their tactics to be terrorism.  This inability for people to acknowledge they are terrorists makes coming up with a definition near impossible. Robert Keeley wrote an entire article about trying to define terrorism. In this article he pointed out that freedom fighters and terrorists are two different things, however freedom fighters often use terrorism. Keeley believes aims of terrorism include “to advertise for the terrorists’ cause and to weaken morale on the attacked side and build up morale on the attacking side. Because of the pejorative connotation of the word, during warfare, groups often label their opponents as ‘terrorists’ in order to gain more support for their own side. This furthers the difficulty of defining terrorism, as everyone wants to say their opponent is a ‘terrorist,’ which makes everyone a terrorist. At the end of his article, Keeley did not seem to be any closer to finding a true definition than at the beginning. In the book Terrorism: Origins and Evolution, Lutz and Lutz say there are six main parts to defining terrorism.

They believe that violence is directed to political ends and that there must in fact be violence or a serious threat of violence. Terrorism must affect a wide range of people, not just the victims of the action. People need to be aware when a terrorist act has happened; there must be an audience. If no one is aware of an occurrence, then the attack has failed. Terrorism is organized and it is performed by a non-state actor. It is important to note the difference between war and terrorism.

In simplest words, a war is a conflict between two organized groups. The difference between a war and terrorism is that terrorism occurs by a non-state organization. In recent years, with the availability of the Internet, it has become much easier for terrorists to spread their ideas. It is now simpler to gain the audience that is required to be a successful terrorist. Finally, they believe that terrorism is a weapon of the weak. Terrorist acts occur when the terrorists have no other options in order to achieve their political goals.

Though there are many definitions for the word terrorism, it seems that all the definitions stressed that it is political in nature. The act is used to achieve a political aim through the means of violence. Terrorists do not require extensive supplies and the goal is to gain support and demoralize their opponent. As long as those who may be seen as terrorists find other names to describe themselves, unwilling to admit that they are a terrorist, I believe it will continue to be difficult to agree on a specific definition. With no one willing to admit to being a terrorist, the word becomes completely subjective.

There will always be controversy over finding one definition, especially with the “new terrorism” in which religion plays a huge role. These terrorists want nothing, but to create terror and cause destruction. They do not fit in the accepted definition of violence with a political motive, yet what they are doing is creating terror and therefore should be considered terrorism. People will find ways to describe themselves as anything but, and their opponents will try to stress that they are in facts terrorists. “Terrorism is ultimately a form of psychological warfare, nd it is designed to induce fear. ”

References

1. Baylis, John, and Steve Smith. Globalization of World Politics an Introduction to International Relations. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Bisset, Alex, ed. “Terrorism. ” The Canadian Oxford Paperback Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2000. Fotion, Nicholas, Joanne K. Lekea, and Boris Kashnikov. Terrorism The New World Disorder (Think Now). New York: Continuum International Group, 2008. Hoffman, Bruce. Inside Terrorism. New York: Columbia University Press, 2006. Jackson, Robert, and Georg Sorensen.
2. Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Keeley, Robert V. “Trying to Define Terrorism. ” Middle East Policy IX. 1 (March 2002): 33-39. Lutz, James Michael, and Brenda J. Lutz. Terrorism Origins and Evolution. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. Moghaddam, Fathali M. , and Anthony J. Marsella, eds. Understanding terrorism psychosocial roots, consequences, and interventions. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2004. 8.

Truancy is on the rise, and is a precursor to anti-social behavior. It can result from bullying, disaffection and ensuing alienation. Not every student can be academically minded, and though academic qualifications are one of the poorest indicators of potential, yet the imperative need of school education cannot be ignored. And staying in school is the first step to a good education. Truancy results in students losing the benefits of instruction, and the community ultimately suffers from an increase in .

The problem can be resolved by a concerted combined effort. The first responsibility is of the concerned school. There has to be a combination of carrot and stick policy. While the counselors and peer groups would motivate, the fear of juvenile courts can be an effective deterrent. Peers have an affirmative influence on students’ decision to play truant. One study reported that 84 percent of the interviewed truants said their friends skipped school. Anti truancy programs that expose truants to other peer groups and other methods of interaction may be effective in reducing truancy. The most successful way of countering the truancy can be a structured approach which:

Involves parents in all truancy prevention activities. Parents play the fundamental role in the education of their children. It is critical that parents of truant children assume responsibility for truant behavior.

Ensure that students face firm sanctions for truancy. Schools should communicate to their students that they have zero tolerance for truancy.

Establish ongoing truancy prevention programs in school. Truancy can be caused by factors like drug use, violence at or near schools, association with truant friends, lack of family support for regular attendance, etc.

Involve local law enforcement in truancy reduction efforts. The school officials should establish close linkages with local police, probation officers, and juvenile and family court officials

This integrated concerted approach can counter and solve the problem of truancy that is symptomatic of a social malaise.

Albert Shanker for 25 years was the columnist for “Where We Stand” in the New York Times and also president of the American Federation of Teachers. His article on the Real Victims addressed the need for alternative programs to resolve violence and disorder in schools. He agrees with Education reformers about setting high standards for students to achieve. But its worthless Shanker argues if students are continually in fear of a stray bullet hitting them or classes ruled by disruptive students.

Shanker opens with an example of school violence, how it terrified one student witnessing the stabbing of another student. Fearful of herself being stabbed too, the girl dropped out of school but managed to earn a GED and further her education into college. Not many could follow the footsteps of this successful girl Shanker warns. Many students he states are scared and disarrayed and lost to school and learning.

He gives an example of disruption and how if not equally more damaging it is when compared to school violence. If there is one student that is disruptive in a class then the teacher”s time will be spent on trying to contain this student rather than attend the many who want to learn Shanker states. As a consequence Shanker concludes this will wreck the concentration of the many learning students in that class.

There is a high level of tolerance for this kind of behavior he states, and school officials seem to be at a loss. Shanker claims that students carrying guns or drugs or who have been violent to other students have simply been transferred to another school, and those students who are chronically disruptive seem to deserve more tolerance. He states that little is done to kids who keep others from learning.

As a result of this failure to remedy the problem Shanker observes that parents that are very much aware of the situation go for vouchers and tuition tax credits. Hoping that by placing their children in schools that do not tolerate violence or disorderly conduct will shield them from it.

Many education experts he points out argue that our first responsibility is to the minority of violent and disruptive kids. These kids they claim have a ‘right” to an education and that they deserve to stay in class too. He refutes this point by addressing the rights of the rest of the students making the majority of the class. Those he claims that are ready to work and willing to learn. Why he questions would we want to threaten their security and education. Shanker defends himself that he does not want to put the violent and disruptive children on the streets rather; he wants to see a change in the system. A system he urges that does not surrender the vast majority of willing and learning children for the few and violent children.

A consequence of not finding an effective remedy to the system of things is that children with impressionable minds will learn the wrong lessons Shanker claims. To support his reasoning he gives an example of a child committing violence against another. The by-standers watching this happen are positive something bad will happen to this violent student. To the surprise of the children, the teacher gets in trouble for reporting the incidence. Children”s sense of right and wrong fades, a bad lesson taught and a violent child is automatically made a leader for the rest to observe and follow Shanker concedes.

Shanker argues that the system is irrational and this is why irate parents demand vouchers and tax credits, anything that could save their children from the few violent children who take hostage the educational system. Rather than the majority of wiling and learning students move out, why not move the few aggressive and troublesome students, Shanker concludes.

Types of and reasons for bullying behavior Questions/Main Ideas/Vocabulary Ask questions you think are important Write questions directly across from the answers In your notes Leave a space or draw a pencil line separating questions Highlight key vocabulary Notes/Answers/Definitions/Examples Write headings larger or in a different color Take sufficient notes with selective (not too much verbiage) & accurate paraphrasing Skip a line between Ideas and topics use billeted lists and abbreviations

Correctly sequence information Types of Participants: Bully – Someone who hurts somebody emotionally and/or physically. Sometimes It Is Intentional, sometimes It Isn’t. Victim – The person who receives the action of the bully. 1 OFF Active Bystander – Acting on behalf of the victim. Why People Bully: Becomes involved. Cultural Causes – Unrealistic for people not to be influenced by violence in our culture. Institutional Causes – If there is no rule enforcing no bullying then it makes the bullying more likely to occur.

Social Issues – Some people think that bullying others is funny or even being the class clown. The negative behavior causes people to bully more because they think “hey why not? Everybody else is doing it! It must be the new thing” Family Issues – Families that encourage violent behavior and the adults in that family who don’t teach their kids right from wrong tend to have children who get in trouble a lot or maybe they don’t do so well in school. They are also most likely to be the bully.

The Board of Education has removed the principal of the troubled Martin Luther King Jr. High School after a spate of violence involving weapons at the school. Most recently, on Friday, a student sneaked a knife into the bustling five-story building and threatened another student. The removal of the principal, Ronald Williams Wells, came almost three weeks after a crush of students, teachers and administrators dashed from the building and for cover in classrooms when a man shot two students in what appeared to be a dispute over a girl.

The school is at West 66th Street and Amsterdam Avenue, a block from Lincoln Center. On Friday, two students were arrested after one student displayed a folding knife during an argument. He passed it to a second student after security officers arrived to break up the fight. The first student sneaked the knife into the building by passing it inside a book bag through the school’s weapons scanner. Martin Luther King school officials did not call th! e Board of Education until hours later, said Catie Marshall.

The Board of Education requires school administrators to call the board’s emergency information center immediately after such incidents. During an investigation into the timing of the report, Tony Sawyer, the Manhattan high school superintendent, removed Mr. Wells Ms. Marshall said. The New York Post first reported the dismissal yesterday. Mr. Wells has been replaced by Steve Gutman, a 36-year veteran of the system who retired in September but came back to the board at Mr. Sawyer’s request. Mr. Wells’s new assignment has not been announced. After the Jan. 5 shootings, Mr. Wells came under criticism for not being at work.

He was on duty with the National Guard that day. Schools Chancellor Harold O. Levy, who toured the building after the shooting, found that some people who were not enrolled in courses were carrying photo identification cards. The school has had its share of trouble in the nearly three decades since it opened. Efforts to improve the curriculum have faltered, and principals have quit. Next year, the school – which is large, with about 3,000 students – will be divided into two smaller academies.

The removal of a principal cannot be seen as having fixed the problem,” said C. Virginia Fields, the Manhattan borough president, who is a member of the task force working to phase out the old school. “There is much work to be done. We need to address safety and security, as well as other concerns that have been raised, including academics and student selection. ” My opinion on the whole thing is that the school made the right decision to remove the princible from the school. For one reason what if something happened again like Columbine. That would not be good.

Non-violence and Willpower Why does an individual indulge in violence? This question has great importance for one who practices non-violence. Its answer compels us to probe the unconscious. We discover there what psychologists call a repressed desire that drives one to violence. It can be controlled only by strong willpower, which is the same as a strong vrata or vow. It is for this purpose that the Anuvrata movement is going on. The unconscious harbours ego which accounts for the individual getting enjoyment out of thinking very high of himself and very low of others.

Discrimination practiced on the basis of race and colour is but one manifestation of man’s ego. Irrational insistence too is rooted in ego. Here in also lies the seed of the communal problem. Here it is relevant to recall one of the vows of Anuvrata: “I will believe in human unity, will eschew any discrimination based on race, colour etc as well as untouchability. ” But if we want to develop non-violence, it is not enough to be conscious merely of the present events. We should be equally conscious of the prime instincts causing the events. Thus it is necessary in the present context to work for disarmament and banning wars.

But it is not enough, for it is only like fighting a fire without discovering its causes. We have to do both things– fight the fire that is raging and, more importantly, find out the factors that have caused it. Likewise, solving the existing problem of violence and discovering the basic cause of violence are equally necessary. People working in the field of non-violence are much less concerned about the latter and this, according to us, is the biggest impediment to the growth of non-violence. Armament, disarmament, war and banning of war–all these matters fall within the jurisdiction of various governments.

The common man has nothing to do with them. And those wielding power are not likely to listen to the talk about non-violence. We have, therefore, to involve the common people in achieving non-violence. These people, as we have seen, have no role in deciding matters of peace and war or of armament and disarmament, but they undoubtedly have the power to decide the destiny of those who decide the above matters. For achieving it,intense faith, incessant striving and complete devotion are needed. We have reason to believe that these qualities will emerge in those working in the field of non-violence.