Domestic Violence in America

Domestic abuse in the United States is a large-scale and complex social and health problem. The family is perhaps the most violent group, with the home being the most violent American institution or setting today (Lay, 1994). Sadly enough, the majority of people who are murdered are not likely killed by a stranger during a hold-up or similar crime but are killed by someone they know. Not surprisingly, the Center for Disease Control and prevention has identified interpersonal violence as a major public health problem (Velson-Friedrich, 1994).

Current estimates suggest that three to four million women are the victims of physical abuse by their intimate partners (Harris & Cook, 1994). According to the FBI, some form of domestic violence occurs in half of the homes in the United States at least once a year (Dickstein, 1988). In reality one out of every six marriages the wife is physically abused. Every fifteen seconds a women is battered in the United States. Daily, four American women lose their lives to their husbands or boyfriends, equaling more than one-third of all female homicide victims (WAC, 1994).

These numbers report that too much violence is directed toward women. Historically, domestic violence has been a downplayed and, oftentimes, culturally condoned, American tradition. In the colonial period, laws derived from English common-law permitted a man to beat his wife when she acted in a manner that he believed to be inappropriate. For example, the so-called Rule of Thumb law, which permitted a husband to beat his wife with a stick that could be no larger than the circumference of his thumb, was in effect until the end of the nineteenth century (Dickstein, 1988).

The issue of domestic violence, especially wife abuse, first gained national attention in 1974 with the publishing of Scream Quietly or the Neighbors Will Hear by Erin Pizzey, the founder of Chiswicks Womens Aid, a shelter in England for battered women. Pizzeys work helped to stimulate feminist concern and outrage over wife beating, verbal abuse, financial restrictions and social isolation of women by their husbands (Utech, 1994). Shortly thereafter, the womens liberation movement, through the National Organization for Women (NOW), advocated for the end of violence against women and sought improved social services for battered wives.

NOW also was actively engaged in promoting shelter homes and lobbying congressional leaders for legislation that would result in better treatment and protection of womens health and well-being (Utech, 1994). The medical profession was greatly affected by the advocacy of the womens liberation movement and has, in recent years, attempted to combat this social ill both by itself and in coordination with the legal and social service professions.

For example, beginning in 1992, the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Health Care Organizations, required that all accredited hospitals implement policies and procedures for identifying, treating and referring victims of abuse (Mason, 1993). This included in-service training programs for staff members of their emergency departments and ambulatory care facilities (Mason, 1993). In 1994, 83 organizations, including the American Nurses Association and the American Bar Association, met to identify gaps and barriers between the health care delivery and criminal justice systems in dealing with family violence cases.

Among their recommendations were the following: a mechanism for community professional coordination in assessment to maximize family safety; the creation of community-based family violence coordination councils; and the need to establish, in every community, a comprehensive, culturally sensitive, and accessible intervention system for family violence that links health, justice, mental health, social service, and educational systems (Stanley, 1994).

In addition, the American Medical Association (AMA) published guidelines for Health care professionals to use in identifying domestic violence victims. Violent families are easy to describe but difficult to explain. Research on family abuse has, on a consistent basis, found that the phenomenon is associated with intergenerational transmission, low socioeconomic status, social and structural stress, social isolation, and personality problems or psychopathology (Yegidis, 1992).

Traditional theories on the causes of domestic abuse focus on such factors as peoples individual characteristics and life experiences, including the presence of problems such as social and structural stress, social alienation, unemployment, poverty, substance abuse, past child abuse, personality disorders, psychopathology, and depression (Yegidis, 1992). However, theories centered on these variables fail to explain why the majority of the population that does not experience domestic abuse, whether as a victim or a perpetrator, are not affected by these variables.

Additionally, research has demonstrated the elimination of personal problems, such as the ones listed above, does not contribute to ending domestic abuse in a relationship. Nevertheless, for the purpose of framing particular studies of domestic abuse, these theoretical approaches are still important. Due to each theorys weakness, it is important for researchers to adopt a theoretically holistic approach. The fact that each case of domestic abuse is somewhat different form another calls for using a variety of theoretical orientations to better examine the nature and extent of this pressing problem.

While domestic abuse can be studied through mental lenses that are psychological or sociological in nature, it is important also to examine this issue from a medical/public health perspective. While many theories have been proposed to explain the causes of family abuse, one of the most useful has been the social learning theory. Bandura (1977) proposed that learning be composed of both a modeling component and reciprocal influence. The latter suggests that we can shape our futures by influencing our environments.

In explaining how social learning theory explains family abuse, OLeary (1988) analyzed the effects of modeling on behavior, the role of stress, the use of alcohol, the presence of relationship dissatisfaction, and aggression as a personality style (cited of Yegidis, 1992). Modeling involves the observation by the child of physical aggression by the parents or the direct experience of having been physically abused. In a study of wife abuse and marital rape, it was found that viewing parental violence was equally important in creating a future pattern of abuse as the direct experience of child abuse itself.

Modeling, therefore, increases the likelihood that one will use violence in order to handle interpersonal difficulties (Yegidis, 1992). Extensive literature exists on the relationship between stress, frustration, and aggression. Stress alone does not cause violence, but it may be a stimulus that serves to arouse some individuals. Overall, abusers generally tend to possess an aggressive personality style. Consequently, people possessing this trait are more likely to get angry than others and may actually get angrier more often than others.

Research suggests that there may be two important aspects to the relationship between family abuse and alcohol. Very often, the abusive behavior of the perpetrator is permitted and excused by the victim because the perpetrator was under the influence of alcohol. On the other hand, alcohol use by victims leads to a numbing effect as well as feelings of powerlessness. Domestic abuse typically follows a cycle of violence pattern. There are three phases in the cycle of violence: tension-building, acute battering and the honeymoon phase.

During the tension-building phase, the batterer becomes increasingly moody, hostile and critical of his partner. Minor battering incidents may occur. During the acute battering phase, the batterer is likely to assault the victim. Major assault of the victim, physically and psychologically, usually distinguishes the acute battering incident from the minor battering incidents that may occur during the tension-building phase. Shortly after the acute battering phase is the honeymoon phase. The batterer may apologize, beg forgiveness, or promise that the violent behavior will never happen again.

An estimated three to four million women annually in the United States are the victims of physical abuse by their intimate partners (Harris & Cook, 1994). According to the Uniform Crime Report (UCR) of the FBI, a husband or boyfriend murders 30 percent of women killed in the United States. In addition, violence is the second leading cause of injuries to women ages 15 through 44 years of age (Velsor-Friedrich, 1994). Most aggressors will often attribute their abusive behavior to external causes, while victims attribute the abuse to internal factors within themselves or situational factors about the abuser (e. Its only because he has been drinking).

The frequent occurrence of victim self-blame is reinforced by social attitudes which are responsible for often blaming the woman for inciting the abuse or not leaving her abuser (Harris & Cook, 1994). There are numerous answers to the commonly asked question of why a woman would stay in an abusive relationship. For many women, no other sources of financial support or housing exist. The responsibility of childcare further complicates the problem. The most serious reason for concern is the fear of retribution by the abuser.

Batterers frequently threaten to kill the woman or other family members if they tell anyone that they are being beaten. Despite the abuse, a woman may still love her partner and, consequently, will lie to protect him. Many victims possess low self-esteem caused by repeated abuse, both physical and emotional, and believe that they dont deserve help. Finally, the pure fact of being embarrassed or ashamed may be sufficient reason for the victim to stay. The term domestic violence against men causes many Americans to react with disbelief. Abused husbands are a frequent topic for jokes.

Family abuse is directly linked to status in the family and socialization. There are many serious effects of societys reluctance to consider the potential for domestic abuse by female. In our society, a large number of girls are told to slap a boy if he gets fresh. Movies and television programs display scenes of women punching and slapping men with complete impunity, while the viewer usually reacts with support for the womens character. While a slap is usually a harmless act, it is important to consider that a slap is still a violent act.

A common question exists when examining domestic abuse against men: if men are usually bigger and stronger than women, then why dont they try to protect themselves: It is important to look at this issue from a child development standpoint. At the same time that girls are being taught that it is acceptable to slap a boy, boys are being told to never hit a girl. The number of cases and the severity and pattern of the violence used against the victims are the major factors differentiating mens violence against women from the violence of women against men.

The civil protection order and the criminal court process are effective tools for protecting almost all heterosexual male victims because women rarely attempt separation violence, the violence that results as the victim attempts to leave the abuser (Pence & Paymar, 1995). Why do men stay? Although they may not be victimized if they leave their spouse, there are many reasons why abused men stay in their violent homes. Abused men, like abused women, fear that if they leave their spouse, the abuse that they have encountered may be directed against their children.

Additionally, many men are hesitant to leave since women get physical custody of children in a large majority of divorce cases. They may also fear that the courts will limit children visitation and access. Deciding to leave an abusive relationship is just one part of the problem for an abused male. Another part is choosing where to go since very few shelters exist for them to find refuge. A variety of programs exist to help abusive men control their violence more effectively, however, finding comparable programs that exists for violent women is an extreme challenge.

Resources and facilities that deal with combating domestic violence are scarce due to the limited funding of social services. Therefore, it has been suggested that some womens groups are fearful that the small amount of funds that exist for assisting abused women may be further lessened if the American public recognizes that men are also abuse victims. Recognizing mens victimization does not mean that we must deny that women are victims. In fact, groups and agencies that assist abused women could also extend their services to aid battered men and vice versa.

The health care system can play an important role as an intervention point. As changes take place in the manner by which health care is delivered, health service researchers have begun to examine ways of reaching out to individuals who require special attention or care, that are unable to obtain it. This approach has also been applied to domestic abuse victim health services. With the number of injuries hat domestic abuse causes annually, the health care system has begun to see itself as an important link in helping ht victims.

The health care profession is in a position to identify abused victims, administer the proper care they require, and refer them to necessary social services. Unfortunately, numerous articles report that many health care professionals do not perform these services for battered women, especially in the emergency room. Using ethnographic techniques, Sugg and Inue (1992) concluded that physicians who explored for domestic abuse in the health care setting felt the procedure to be similar to opening Pandoras box, in fact, 18 percent of the physicians interviewed used that actual phrase.

The physicians participating in this study (the majority of whom were family practice specialists) reported such problems as lack of comfort in dealing with the issue, fear of offending the patient, a sense of powerlessness, loss of control, and time constraints, all of which constitute barriers to domestic abuse recognition and intervention in cases of domestic abuse seen in the primary care setting (Sugg and Inue, 1992).

Analyzing research that investigates health professionals perspective of domestic abuse helps to confirm the startling reality that exists for victims seeking assistance. Sadly enough, as severe a health threat domestic abuse poses to women, many victims have been, or are currently, misidentified or met with apathy by health care professionals. This phenomenon is due to many factors, the most common of which includes inadequate training (many training programs do not even discuss domestic abuse) and tendencies toward feelings of victim blaming.

Many health care professionals adopt the stance that domestic abuse is a problem that falls outside the spectrum of their job description. These professionals view the ideology of the family as a private domain and believe difficulties inside the home can and should be settled by the family member themselves (Davison & Couns, 1997). Assessment of abuse, whether in female or male, requires a high degree of suspicion during the assessment of the patient.

Sadly enough, physicians fail to always recognize and/or acknowledge the source of repeated injuries. One study found that 35 percent of female emergency room patients are treated for symptoms related to ongoing abuse, but only approximately 5 percent of the women are identified as victims of domestic abuse (Bowers, 1994). In 1992, the American Medical Association published Treatment Guidelines on Domestic Violence. Aside from assessment, suggestions for the physician to follow in the interview of the victim are mentioned as well.

These include: Physicians must ask direct, specific questions to determine the occurrence or extent of abuse since many women do not recognized that they are battered; Consider the possibility of assault when a victims explanation of an injury does not seem plausible, or when the victim has delayed medical treatment; The patient may appear frightened or nervous or exhibit stress-related symptoms in addition to physical injury; Maintaining a complete and detailed description of the event, in the victims own words if possible and of resulting injuries, including photographs if applicable; Being aware that the severity of current or past injury is not an accurate predictor of future violence, the patients safety should be discussed before leaving the physicians office or treatment center; Being aware of local resources to make appropriate referrals; A physician who treats a victim and does not inquire about domestic abuse or accepts an unlikely explanation for the injury could be held liable if the victim returns to the abuser and is injure again (American Medical Association, 1992).

Aside from medical and psychiatric treatment for injuries, potential victims of abuse can be given information and counseling form the health care provider in order to prevent further victimization episodes. Patients can be informed about the risk factors involved that would increase the chances of serious harm to them.

Psychological counseling, administered by either the primary care provider or a mental health professional, can assist the patient in ending personal relationships with abusive individuals. Additionally, the patient can be provided with telephone numbers and encouraged to contact existing community resources such as crisis centers, shelters, protective service agencies, or the police department if there is fear of injury (Guide to Clinical Preventive Screening, 1995). Its amazing to me that of all crimes in todays society; domestic violence is the one that is still on the rise. It is time to take domestic violence seriously and combat it aggressively.

In order for positive change to occur, our legal system needs to protect the battered and not the batterer. A majority of battered women are murdered if they try to leave an abusive situation. Why is that? Because they dont have the protection they need. The criminal justice system needs to start a victim relocation program for domestic abuse victims. This would ensure their safety and allow them enough courage to leave a horrible situation. In a nation that detests racism and protests animal cruelty then why are women and children still subject to torture and violence in their own homes at the hands of their husbands and fathers? In a politically correct world too many of us still view women and children as inferior, as property.

The media portrays women as sex symbols and often with a very noticeable lack of intelligence. Often doctors turn their backs on damage left as the result of abuse because of the fear of embarrassing their patients (WAC, 1994). It is time to declare war on domestic violence. Domestic violence will always be a part of our culture. Women are still not considered equal and historically it was acceptable to beat your wife if she was out of line. With todays broken marriages and extensive abuse of alcohol and drugs, the matter will only get worse. If strong initiatives are not instilled now, there will be many unnecessary deaths due to the rise in abuse.

The problem of violence in schools

The problem of violence in schools today is a major concern. Crime in and around schools threatens the well being of students, as well as the school staff and the surrounding communities. It also holds back learning and student achievement. The problem is more defined in the public school system than in catholic schools. Catholic schools seem to express a better-rounded teaching environment. Most catholic schools have less tolerance than they do in public schools. It is said that the wearing of a uniform helps to keep more peace in the school. The students do not get made fun of for not wearing brand name clothing.

The laughing and making fun of the other students is what contributes to low self-esteem, which one of the traits for a student who is likely to bring violence into school. More than half of U. S. public schools have reported at least one crime incident in 1997. Also one in ten schools reported at least one serious violent crime during this school year. Ten percent of all public schools had experienced one or more serious violent crimes (e. g. murder, rape, suicide, sexual battery, and physical attack of fighting with a weapon or robbery) reported to police or other law enforcement during 1997.

Crime and violence seem to be more of a problem in middle and high schools than in elementary schools. In 1997 forty-five percent of elementary schools reported one or more acts of violence. Seventy-four percent of middle schools and seventy-five percent of high schools had reported incidents of violence. One of the goals of the National Education Goals states that by the year 2000, all schools in America will be free of drugs and violence and the unauthorized presence of firearms and alcohol, and offer a disciplined environment that is conducive to learning.

This goal has obviously not yet been reached, but there still is some time left for them to reach this goal. The crimes that are most frequently occurring in most schools are vandalism, theft/larceny, and physical attack or fight without a weapon. Six percent have reported physical attack or fight with a weapon. Even though the percentage of weapon related crimes is not as high as many of the rest, it is still one of the biggest and must be eliminated. It is the one of the worst acts of violence that could happen in a school. The school administration should adopt a policy that will help to eliminate the violence.

They should either consider a zero tolerance strategy or something similar. The school environment should be a safe one for staff and students. Students should be able to go to school and not be concerned with any in or outside forces that will distract them from learning, or injure them in some way. Many potentially violent incidents continue to plague schools. School administrators are reviewing security and crisis plans, but many administrators are quick to point out that there is no one answer to providing a safe school environment. Everyone wants a simple solution, but the is not a one.

People have to work towards getting and maintaining school safety. But no matter how well prepared or how safe everyone thinks a plan to be; it will never be one hundred percent foolproof. Someone will always find a way to get around even the most strategized effort to control the violence. Most incidents could and can be prevented by students, parents, teachers, or citizens coming forward and sharing the information that they know with either the school or police. It is known that prior to a major violent attacking, in most schools someone knows that it is going to happen other than the person who is planning it.

But they do not go forward because they think that something like that could never happen in their school. Violence can happen anywhere, at any time. For example, take the Jonesboro incident or Columbine, it is common knowledge that someone knew about what the students were planning, but did not share it with the school or police officials. Schools should pay attention to not only the major incidents like Columbine, but also to the smallest threat. Schools in Allen, Texas, cancelled the remaining two weeks of classes due to repeated bomb threats.

But after parental and community outrage, officials opened the schools on a limited basis a few days later. Four boys were charged with plotting a shooting in their Port Huron, Michigan, middle school similar to the massacre at Columbine. Reaction like these should always be taken to incidents as such. It prevents the tragedies like Columbine and others from happening again. A common trend in most school shootings is that they have all occurred in communities in which people felt safe. The perception of schools as being safe havens has changed over the past few years since the rash of shooting incidents.

But the fact still remains that schools are the safest places for children. But, still, schools have always been easy targets for violence. Even though the number of violent incidents in schools is dropping, the use of firepower by students is growing. Lately, medal detectors, security cameras, ID cards, and other security hardware and systems have been finding the nations schools as a home. This is mainly due to the need to show students, staff, and parents that security measures are being taken. Schools should be safe enough that they there is no need for security devices as such.

Although medal detectors are very useful, but they are only part of the solution. Schools must also look at other prevention methods. Administrators have agreed that they will not find just one specific solution to the school dilemma that would be one hundred percent effective. Something that must be changed is the fact that in every incident in the last two years, the kids have spoken about their act before the committed it. And for some reason or other, adults have refused to pay attention to it. It must be changed. People listen to a cry for help when they hear it, why not this?

It is basically the same thing; they should pay just as much attention to it. Safety is not a sometimes thing, it is an all-the-time thing, students should be able to go to school and feel safe. It has been said that violence on television has been a contributor to kids committing these acts of violence. But is this really true? Sure, the violence on television is a contributor. But it is not as big a contributor as most people make it out to be. Most of the students, who do commit crimes in school, all fit basically the same profile.

They were alienated, angry and had a history of emotional problems. They are students who hold a grudge. Most of these students often write about these things in advance, they perhaps signal that they are going to happen. Experts say that there is no foolproof way to spot potential killers. But, by early next year, the FBI will release a report listing problematic traits to help educators and parents identify the seriousness of a students threat.

The report will detail warning signs in four areas of a students life: 1. ) Personality, 2. ) Family, 3. ) School behavior, and 4. Other factors such as drugs and alcohol. This report should be very helpful to the parents and administration in controlling the safety of their school. Some of the indicators of what would make a student turn to violence are: social withdraw, excessive feelings of isolation and persecution, and a history of aggressive behavior. The question of what went wrong early on in these kids lives is brought up more that one. It is wondered what made them into killers where they would go out and without any conscience just kill people, their friends and classmates and then themselves.

No one will ever know except for himself or herself. What steps should be taken to helping kids like this? Having school psychologists is a good idea; they are traditionally the first lines of defense. But lately they have been preoccupied in assessing kids who need to help with learning disorders. Many schools are now adopting zero tolerance policies, pulling out kids who do anything suspicious. This works, but not always. When a school expels a student for something like violent imagery in creative writing, it is an overreaction.

Or the twelve year old boy in Virginia who was expelled for waiving a stapler around on a school bus; a Florida girl was suspended for bringing a nail clipper to class, and the suspension of a nine year old boy who wrote you will die with honor when his teacher asked him to compose a fortune cookie message. It is all-ridiculous. There is no reason to go that far. The zero tolerance rule is a good idea, but not for things like that. But for a kid who brings a gun to school or a kid who starts a fire in the school, they should be removed immediately, with no questions asked.

Zero tolerance polices should cover clear and serious offenses involving weapons, violence, threat, harassment, bomb scares, drugs, alcohol and cheating. Not in simple matters like those mentioned above. Crime rates in the United States are decreasing which is very good. Statistics show that crime rate in the U. S. has declined 6. 4 percent and the murder rate has declined 7. 4 percent in 1998. A poll shows that forty years ago, fifty percent of Americans reported having guns in their homes. Last year the figure was thirty-five percent. Which is good. This lessens the easiness of a child getting a gun to bring into school.

A New York Times/CBS poll asked kids if they worry about being crime victims at school or on the streets and twenty-four percent said yes. So, obviously the kids are not as concerned about a killer attending their school as the adults are. It is not clear at this point if schools are engaged in another cycle of violence or if we have evolved into a society whose culture has embraced violence as a characteristic and permanent feature. It is argues that the youth of today are coming more and more from backgrounds where antisocial behavior is more normal rather than unusual.

These young people are highly agitated and invested in antisocial attitudes. They tend to see the behavior and intentions of others as biased against them. They frequently decide to react aggressively to situations they view as challenging or threatening, very often with tragic consequences. This kind of aggression and reaction is what makes the schools dangerous. There are four factors that generally accelerate youth violence. They are: 1. ) Easy access to weapons, especially hand guns, 2. ) Early involvement with drugs and alcohol, 3. ) Association with antisocial groups and 4. ) Pervasive exposure to violent acts depicted in the media.

Eight-one percent of weapons brought to school come from the home. A safe school is characterized as effective, accepting, freedom from potential physical and psychological harm, absence of violence, and being nurturing, caring, and protective. Some school based protective factors are positive school climate and atmosphere, clear and high performance expectations for all students, good values and practices throughout the school, strong student bonding to the school environment, high levels of student participation and parent involvement in social development, and schoolwide conflict-resolution strategies.

An unsafe school is characterized by lack of cohesion, chaotic, stressful, disorganized, poorly structured, ineffective, high risk, gang activity, violent incidents, unclear behavioral and academic expectations. Some risk factors are poor design and use of school space, overcrowding, lack of caring but firm disciplinary procedures, student alienation, rejection of at-risk students by teachers and peers, anger and resentment at school routines and demands for conformity, and poor supervision.

Impacts and influences of school violence are: 1. Large schools and classrooms of students, that prevents teachers from developing meaningful relationships with students and 2. ) Overcrowded schools normally have higher rates of discipline problems and vandalism than schools that are at or below the enrollments for which they are intended. We must begin to reform the schools who need it. There are direct strategies as well as indirect strategies. Examples of the direct include things such as locks on doors, metal detectors, and random searching for weapons. Indirect strategies include requiring school uniforms, and establishing a positive school climate.

It is likely that more direct strategies are more effective than the indirect, but they do not change the culture of the school. It is recommended that schools maintain a zero tolerance policy for weapons, fighting, or other acts of violence, minimized the number of unlocked entrances, exits, and halls for students and visitors, require students to carry a hall pass when roaming about the school during classes and to limit the hall passes to an absolute minimum. These few strategies can be the stepping stones to making a better school enviroment.

The Effects Of Violence In Media On Society Today

Is societies violence the media’s fault? This is the question that has been asked since before television was in every American’s house. Of course there are the different types of media today ranging from newspapers, to on-line reports and stories. There have been arguments upon arguments about this issue, and over 3,000 studies conducted. Unfortunately there isn’t one single result, there is only an array of supposed answers to this undying question. CBS president, Howard Stringer is pointing to a different scapegoat for society’s violence.

I come from a country that puts a lot of American movies on and has more graphic violence within it’s live drama on the BBC than anywhere else, and there is a lot less violence in the United Kingdom than there is here. There are 200 million guns in America, and that has a lot to do with violence. ” He feels it has to do with gun control, which others have suggested. But there are so many violent acts, that one can’t focus on the guns, just like one can’t focus on the media. David Phillips, one of the men we discuss later put it perfectly, “It’s like watching rain fall on a pond and trying to figure out which drop causes which ripple.

There have been many studies conducted on the effects of violence on children, and on the effects on society as a whole. There have been about 3,000 studies performed on this topic. Two of the most prolific studies were the UCLA Television Violence Monitoring Report, and the Mediascope, Inc. test sponsored by the National Cable Television Association. Of course there were many other studies done, but these made headlines because of their results. The UCLA study focused on all of the television media, and discovered some interesting facts from their study.

Prime Time Series raised the least concern. Theatrical films raised more concern and had a lot more violence. The Saturday morning cartoons had mixed reviews. 23% of the cartoons raised concern, but that was only rating the most popular cartoons: Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, X-Men, etc. They termed the action in cartoons as “Sinister Combat Violence” which basically means the whole story line leads to violence. Mediascope, Inc. focused on the amount and context on cable, effectiveness of rating systems and parental advisories, and the success of anti-violent messages.

They found that perpetrators go unpunished in 73% of all violent scenes, one out of four violent interactions involved the use of handguns, and premium cable channels present the highest percentage of violent programs (85%). There was more to their findings, but these were the more prevalent findings. University of Michigan psychologists Dr. Leonard Eron and Dr. Rowell Huesmann conducted a study, which continued for decades. This was conducted beginning in 1960. They took 800 eight-year-olds and found that children who watched many hours of violent television tended to be more aggressive in the playground and the classroom.

They checked back with these kids 11 and 22 years later. They found the aggressive eight-year-olds grew up to become even more aggressive. They testified before congress in 1992 stating, “Television violence affects youngsters of all ages, of both genders, at all socioeconomic levels and all levels of intelligence. The effect is not limited to children who are already disposed to being aggressive and is not restricted to this country. “David Phillips, a scientist at the University of California in San Diego conducted a study on prizefights on television.

He thought of this topic, because he felt there wasn’t enough research being conducted on the copycat violence. He found that after prize fights on television, there would be about a 10 percent increase in murders for a few days afterwards. He quoted, “It also seems to be the case that the kind of person killed just after the prizefight is similar to the person beaten in the prize fight. “There are four major theories of television violence. The “arousal” theory, the “social learning” theory, the “disinhibition hypothesis,” and the “catharsis hypothesis.

These four hypothesis/theories are old and new conclusions to the question at hand. It is notable to see that some of these theories were stated as early as 1961. Most would have to disagree with these theories just because of the age of their births, but to most people’s surprise they still hold in the 21st century. The arousal theory is basically self-explanatory. This was theorized by P. H. Tannenbaum in 1975. He said exposure to television violence increases aggression because violence increases excitation, or “arouses” viewers (Tannenbaum & Zillman, 1975).

This is also being found in the recent studies, which shows the progression in the media’s will to change. The “social learning” theory was described by Dr. Bandura. This theory says ways of behaving are learned by observing others, and that this is a major means by which children acquire unfamiliar behavior, although performance of acquired behavior will depend at least in part on factors other than acquisition (Bandura, 1973). A perfect example of this theory was when the murders occurred after the prizefights. The “disinhibition hypothesis” was L. Berkowitz’s investigation.

This hypothesis explains that television violence in certain circumstances will result in increased interpersonal aggression because it weakens inhibitions against such behavior (Berkowitz, 1962). The final theory, “catharsis hypothesis” was written by S. Feshbach. This theory explains that under certain conditions exposure to television violence will reduce subsequent aggression (Feshbach, 1961). What this is saying is that if someone sees a fantasy on TV, or now with technology, entertains themselves with virtual reality, that fantasy is fulfilled, which makes them not feel they have to do that in real life.

So many people have discussed the topic of media effecting society, from Aristotle to the President of CBS. It has always been a question, but never as needy for an answer as now. Hopefully the government has some say in this soon, so the drama of centuries will finally be over. But that probably won’t occur anytime soon. Aristotle was a big supporter of “catharsis. ” He believed that the audience became psychologically involved with the story on stage, even though they knew it was 100% fiction.

He felt when aggression climaxed with the actors, there was a “catharsis” in the audience, which was pleasurable to experience and left the audience “cleansed, uplifted, and less likely to act violently among themselves. “Sigmund Freud also felt as Aristotle did by saying, “Unless people were allowed to express themselves aggressively, the aggressive energy would be dammed up, pressure would build, and the aggressive energy would seek an outlet, either exploding into acts of extreme violence or manifesting itself as symptoms of mental illness . But there is no direct evidence for this conclusion (Aronson, 1995, p. 258).

President Clinton looks at it in a different light saying, “for people who have never been taught to understand the consequences of their action these things can unintentionally set forth a chain reaction of ever more impulsive behavior. ” Hollywood figures of the 21st century blame factors such as poverty, drugs and alcohol, poor schooling, lax gun control and a general breakdown of families but not screen violence. University of Iowa professor of Journalism and Mass Communication Albert Talbott said, “In the 30s, when I was a toddler, one of the things that concerned parents were comic books and the violence in them.

As soon as the modern media started to develop, we have all kinds of things on how we are affecting people. “Technology today isn’t helping everyone to feel better about this dilemma. It is actually going to get worse before it gets better. There isn’t only movies or news reports someone can watch to see violence, but also the new video game craze. Video games have become an enormous industry in the past decade. People from 4 years old to 70 years old own their own Sega Genesis or Nintendo Play Station. Of course there is a number of games to choose frombut what is the highest wanted game? None other then Mortal Combat.

The name speaks for itself. Just for the record, this game consists of choosing a character, a weapon and then fighting another character until one is dead. It also is equipped with sound effects for when someone is punched or stabbed, and also shows the blood flying from the body when hit. So many studies have been done on the affects of media violence on children. Most are concerned with the results, especially parents. If the government, parents or others are so concerned with the effect of their child seeing violence on the television, maybe they should practice what they preach when Christmas rolls around.

They should think twice before buying that Mortal combat III for their son. This is where it gets sticky. Parents need to draw the line between appropriate and not appropriate. It would be a nice convenience to have a rating system on the television, but parents should be aware enough of what their children are doing and watching that they are the rating system themselves. The question now is what is happening to help this situation currently? The answer is quite relieving. All of the networks are on their “tippy toes” so they won’t get a bad name.

The Entertainment Industries council, which distributes suggestions to the writers and producers of network shows and TV movies on social issues, is now meeting with writers to develop ways for dramatizing conflict without violence and showing the consequences of violence. MTV is the most risque station on cable right now. It shows a good amount of sex and violence everyday. Usually more sex then violence, but there is a good amount of both. But at MTV, almost one out of three music videos submitted is being ruled inappropriate for broadcast.

The V-Chip is another work in progress for parents. This device will be in all televisions within 5 years. It is a rating system for parents, and they can program it to cut off shows with violence or nudity, etc. This will help parents regulate what their children will watch, even when they aren’t around. It will be like on-line shopping, a convenience, but you still have to choose what you want to buy. Film director Oliver Stone says, “Films have become more sanitized. We’re moving away from reality. We’re in the grip of a political correctness that’s bothersome.

Obviously there will be some who are concerned with the action government is taking, because media should be realistic and educating, even if it is gruesome. Some would disagree with that statement, and those are the ones taking action now. Photojournalist Assistant Professor John Kimmich Javier said, “News isn’t always pretty or nice. People must face that reality. ” People have had to face that reality, and now are taking action to stop that from continuing to be reality. Should it be stopped is the real question. What is the effect of violence in media with children compared to with adults?

Children model behavior they see in the media. If they don’t see the consequences of violence, it will teach them that violence doesn’t cause serious harm. Adults see more violence in the media than actually exists in real life. That’s because producers believe that they have to include extraordinary violence in order to keep the viewer. When heroes use violence, children think that violence is an appropriate way to respond to problems. Children are younger, so they see things and apply that to their lives, because they are learning everything at that age.

Adults look at it as the “mean world syndrome” in which they see how society is portrayed on TV, and they think that every neighborhood is dangerous, like shown. When in fact most neighborhoods are nothing like they are portrayed on TV. The writers and producers are exaggerating, to make it all interesting. There is also discussion of violence on TV not having any affect at all. People have seen so much, that they don’t really think about the actual act occurring on screen. Hanno Hardt, a professor at J-MC School said, “It’s lost it’s shock value. Maybe 20 to 30 years ago we would have been shocked.

Now, a generation later, we know that this is a violent society. And when we read about violence, it only reinforces what we know. ” People have become used to seeing violence on television, but this has become somewhat surreal to them. They don’t think of it as reality until it happens to them. “When violence happens to people or their family, they become eyewitnesses to this violence. They have personal experiences – compassion sensitivity, fear. People haven’t lost that. “We have covered a huge amount of information about the effect of violence in media on society. Did we answer the question though?

I don’t think we did, but I do think that the answer is making progress. We are also a lot more informed now of what exactly is in the media right now, and what studies have shown to be happening. There has always been an issue of something effecting society, and there will always be a plentitude of scapegoats. What is the actual answer though? No one seems to have it. There is a lot of gray area, but society seems to be making this more of a black and white issue. Will the government ever really take action? Does action need to be taken? Hopefully after reading this, one is more educated on the difficulty in answering these questions.

Impact Of Violence TV

Just sixty years ago the invention of the television was viewed as a technological curiosity with black and white ghost-like figures on a screen so small hardly anyone could see them. Today that curiosity has become a constant companion to many, mainly children. From reporting the news and persuading us to buy certain products, to providing programs that depict violence, television has all but replaced written material. Unfortunately, it is these violent programs that are endangering our present-day society.

Violent images on television, as well as in the movies, have inspired people to set spouses on fire in their beds, lie down in the middle of highways, extort money by placing bombs in airplanes, rape, steal, murder, and commit numerous other shootings and assaults. Over 1,000 case studies have proven that media violence can have negative affects on children as well. It increases aggressiveness and anti-social behavior, makes them less sensitive to violence and to victims of violence, and it increases their appetite for more violence in entertainment and in real life.

Media violence is especially damaging to young children because they cannot tell the difference between real life and fantasy. Violent images on television and in movies may seem real to these children and sometimes viewing these images can even traumatize them. Despite the negative effects media violence has been known to generate, no drastic changes have been made to deal with this problem that seems to be getting worse. We, as a whole, have glorified this violence so much that movies such as “Natural Born Killers” and television shows such as “Mighty Morphin Power Rangers” are viewed as normal, everyday entertainment.

It’s even rare now to find a children’s cartoon that does not depict some type of violence or comedic aggression. What we do not realize though, is that it is the children that are ending up with problems. Unlike most rational, educated adults, many children are gradually beginning to accept violence as a way to solve problems and are imitating what they observe on television. These children do not understand that the violence is shown strictly because the public wants to see it. They cannot grasp the meaning of “ratings” and “entertainment” as well as adults can.

All they know is, “if the TV portrays violence as cool, then it must be cool! ” The problem isn’t the violence in the media though; it is the media’s failure to show the consequences of violence. This is especially true of cartoons, toy commercials, and music videos. Children often do not realize that it hurts to hit someone else because they see it all the time on TV. Everyday a cartoon character is beat up, injured, or killed, only to return in the very next episode, good as new. As a result, children learn that there are few, if any repercussions for committing violent acts.

Unfortunately, as long as there is an extremely high public demand for violent shows and movies, the media is going to continue on the same path. And because it looks as though the “violence craze” is going to continue for some time, we need to be dependent on parents to reduce the effect that media violence has on children, which can be done in so many different ways. First, parents should limit the amount of television children watch per day from the average 3 to 4 hours, which is double the amount of recommended hours, to 1 to 2 hours.

Children are exposed to far too much violence every day on TV, mainly because parents see the TV as a convenient babysitter. By limiting the amount of time spent in front of the “tube,” parents will compel their children to do something more productive like reading a book or playing outside. In limiting TV time, parents also need to monitor what programs their children are watching and restrict the viewing of violent programs. Just because a child is not watching as much violence, does not mean he or she still can’t be influenced by it.

Parents should also make a greater effort to better develop their children’s media literacy skills. They need to help children to distinguish between fantasy and reality. Without proper instruction, children often have a hard time drawing the line between what is real and what is make-believe. With this education, parents should teach their children that real-life violence has consequences, in that pain is real and death is permanent. They need to understand that weapons and other acts of violence can inflict serious and life-long injuries.

This education can be done simply by watching television with children and discussing the violent acts and images that are portrayed. They should ask children to think about what would happen in real life if the same type of violent act were committed. Would anyone die or go to jail? Would anyone be sad? Would the violence solve problems or create them? Just asking children how they feel after watching a violent TV show, movie, or music video is enough to move them from their innocent dream world into reality. Finally the easiest and most simple way to keep children away from excessive media violence is to teach them alternatives to violence.

Parents should not be so quick to let their children plop down in front of a TV set. They should interest their children with something much more productive and exciting to do. However this task is completed, it is important for children to be given the proper support in dealing with issues of violence. If not, they could end up like one of the thousands of criminals sent to prisons and on death row for mindless and unnecessary acts of violence. We are bombarded continually with images of violence, brutality, and sexual immortality.

When children, teen-agers, and adults all mindlessly automatically imitate and follow the leader, it is hard to believe that there are so many non-aggressive and non-violent people in the world. The reason for this is education. We, as a humane society, learn in the early years of our life that violence is wrong. It is important for this education to continue with each passing generation. Mass media can have a very negative effect on children, but with the support of parents and a little control, the television can be turned into a beneficial tool rather than negative impact.

Violence: Children Who Own The Streets

There are many problems facing today’s society. One of the problems is the violent condition that surrounds the lives of children in America. We are awarded of the violence among our juveniles because we read, hear and see it. The newspapers, magazines, news media, and our neighborhoods testify the living proof of the chaos. Everyone tries to find explanations of the causes and consequences of street violence and other aspects of the turbulent lives of young people. Yet, the problem facing our juveniles will not be solved over night. But that’s not a reason enough to ignore the problem.

It will only ake matters worse and keep on doubling through the years. It is our duty as citizens, friends and family to start trying to make that difference. It is frustrating to know that violence among the children of America is increasing in many aspects. The crimes are starting to vary. It’s not like in the past, where kids only stole candies or disobeyed curfew laws. Now children steal, murder, rape and use drugs. This is not the America that we knew, this is a battle. What can we do to influence these kids to stay off trouble? First of all, we have to realize this is a very serious problems. And it has to be stopped.

The second step is to figure out what causes children to be violent and become juvenile delinquents. This negative attitude causes them to lead a life of delinquency and a life isolated from society’s idealistic world. When we ask these question, many others come in mind. Does these problems begin in the family? Are parents good role models or are they condoning the violence? How can we prevent parents from destroying the minds and future of these children? If we try to deny a teen who seeks help, they will only turn to the streets, drugs, and gangs. When they turn rebellious they will commit crimes, minor or major.

Juvenile violence is a problem, it leads to crime and segregation. If it’s not lessen, it will only keep doubling. And then the future of America will devour. Some of the main concerns of violence revolves around the family atmosphere. Some families are not creating a secured environment for their children. Instead, these children get exposed to illegal behavior and violent actions in the homes. Family morals and values play an important role in the discipline and education of an adolescent. If you teach a kid to be good, he ill be good. If you show him bad, he will see bad.

What ever they plant that’s what they will produce. In depicting family disturbance, we encountered with interviews done by the Children’s Express teen journalists. One of the interviews is on Connie a twelve year old from Indianapolis expressing herself on violence. ” I’m just a person that would try to stay out of trouble and do what is right, but I sure wish I could change all the violence and stuff that I be around and all the trouble that my family go through. Some of my uncles do a lot of drugs and the police is always after them. ( Kozol. 4).

Diamond a fourteen year old from San Francisco also tells. I’m fourteen years old and I usually come down the street to hang out, just talk to friends. My home’s not really functional and stuff, so I try to get away from it as much as possible. My mom, she’s like manic-depressive and she hasn’t worked in three years, and my sister is really abusive. She’s older, so she thinks she’s the boss of everything and everybody, so I don’t really like to be at home. ” (Kozoc. 9). I think in order to know what’s going with juveniles, it’s very important to listen to what they say.

That’s why you will hear their voices. On his fifth birthday, Mark’s father gave him a gun. And this is what Mark ( 16 yrs. ld) from Massachusetts says, “That was his thing—–we all had to learn how to shoot when we turned five years old . He made me go to Karate and wrestling.

My father was very big on fighting. There was no time for anything except for my father. He always found something for us to do. You could go outside, rake the yard, be done with it, and then you’d have to go sweep the driveway, then go rake the yard again, You had no free time for yourself, no privacy at all. Everyday he used to hit me, and one year he molested my sister. I found that out after I killed him I knew, even as I pulled the trigger I was going to prison.

I just didn’t want my family to suffer anymore, or myself. ” (Kozoc 13). These are only Some of the many stories that describe the anguish and desperation of these juveniles. And some of these stories are valid for the cause of so much violence among them. When we talk according to the statistics family breakdown is 27% of factors important in causing crime, poor housing is 15%, poor education is 7%. and drugs is 22%. These are factors that judges etermines as most important There are more causes of violence than family. And that’s why it’s very important in investigating other probable causes.

One of them is watching too much violence on television by children and adults is certainly suspected as a major contributor. In a study by American psychological Association, they estimated that the average American child, by the seventh grade, he has watched 8,000 murders and 100,000 acts of violence on TV. (Baron, 154). In American cartoons, a violent act occurs on average 90 seconds. That is 10 percent more than 10 years ago. In an article in the New York magazine, Ken Auletta quoted the association’s report which noted the consequences of watching so many acts of violence.

Accumulated research demonstrates a correlation between viewing violence and aggressive behavior—that is, heavy viewers behave more aggressively that light viewers. Children and adults who watch a large number of aggressive programs also tend to hold attitudes and values that favor the use of aggression to solve conflicts. ” ( Baron. 155). In a nationwide poll by the Times Mirror Company in February 1993, it was found that Americans are ncreasingly disturbed by the violence on TV entertainment shows, and 80 percent of them believe that it’s harmful to the nation.

The survey showed the link between age and concern about television violence. The majority of Americans — -72 percent of those surveyed—– said that TV has too much violence, about 25 percent characterized it as a ” reasonable amount” and the remainder said there is ” very little” violence on TV or had no opinion. The opinion percentages were almost the same as found by a national poll taken in 1971. What was different in the 1993 poll was that more Americans are troubled by ntertainment violence now, and more believe it has a poisonous effect on society.

Americans who said they were ” personally” bothered” by violence in TV shows jumped to 59 percent in 1983, with those saying they were bothered a great deal rising to 24 percent from 16 percent. ( Baron 155). Another contributor to violence and crime would be hand guns. With easy access to guns and propensity of American toward violence, the result is that a lot of people are killed every year by guns—about 30,000 in 1991. How many Americans would be killed every year if guns were not available to the public?

If criminals and hostile people only had hands and fists and knives to attack people, surely, only a small percentage of the current 24,000 gun homicides would actually occur. The five children killed in Stockton, California, school yard by Patrik Purdy, or the massacre of 22 people killed at Luby’s Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, would not have happened if guns were not available. It is estimated that about one half of the households in the United States have at least one gun and that typical gun owner is fairly educated member of the middle class. And this is what causes their juveniles to have easy access to guns.

They see the guns and their curiosity makes them grab a hold of them and get hostile. That’s why in most child homocides firearms the number is 1,500, hands and feet 400, k 0. nives 180, blunt object 50, and other forms are 250. Deaths by firearms per 100,000 in the 15-19 age group in 1992 was as followed, African Americans males 105,000, African American females 10,000, white males 10,000, and white females were 1,000. This goes to show us that things are not getting any good compared to many years ago. More juveniles are killing and getting killed, Some of the violence happens in the schools and this is one story.

A dozen teenagers watched as a fifteen year old student shot and killed a seventeen year old classmate at Reseda High School in February of 1993. ( California ). Robert Heard, a Reseda High football player, confronted Michael Shean Ensley in a corridor during midmorning snack break. He fired once, hitting Ensley in the chest. Ensley staggered outside and collapsed in a grassy quadrangle area near the administration office. Several who witnessed the incident initially thought it was play acting, but rushed the injured youth to the nurse’s office when they realized he was hurt. He was pronounced dead at

Northridege Hospital Medical Center a shot time later. Robert was arrested shortly after. ( Baron 14). This was only one of the many stories that we hear about juvenile crimes. Not only do they kill but they join gangs to gain that power. Youth gangs are ways out for teens who are in crisis or need special attention. Youth gangs of adolescent, usually male, from urban working class or under privileged districts, take part in aggressive and delinquent activities both within the gang and outside of it, fighting other gangs, committing assault and theft and damage to property,.

Rarely are such gangs organized crime units, more often they are delinquent as a means for obtaining kicks. Increasingly street gangs are involved in drug trafficking, intimidation and violence. Some gangs have initiation rituals, including shooting people,. Youth gangs have developed in many countries, increasing ( like the general level of juvenile delinquency) in countries with a higher economic levels or with rapid social and economic change. In 1988, 622 wilding robberies were referred to New York’s City’s family court.

It is the second most common crime among youths in New York city, after crack dealing. In Los Angeles in 1990 there were some 750 gangs; in 1994 the estimate was 885( 570 Latino and 315 Black). One of the biggest claim to have 10,000 members. By the year 2000 it is estimated that there will be 250,000 gang members in LA. County. Gang related robberies in 1989 were put at 1,800; murder at 570, and 8000 or more in 1992. Gangs offer an identity and opportunity for self assertion to youths under conditions where life holds out little else.

With murders in the schools, families and gangs, there comes another crime that is rising as well. Sexual Offenses by juveniles is one that we can’t forget. In U. S. A from 1976 to 1986 the rate arrest for 13 and 14 year old accused of rape doubled to 40 arrests per 100,000 children. For sex offenses like exhibitionism, grabbing and fondling in the same age group arrests increased by 80%.. To sum it all up juvenile crime, as all crime has been increasing. Brutal crime among young offenders also is increasingly evidenced in reports, particularly on urban areas.

Some offenders are psychotic and their offenses may range from suicide to mass murder. Others are anti-social given to minor acts of defiance. Ease of access to weapons ; drug addiction; unemployment; and conomic motives, are the more obvious circumstances leading to crime; but modern societal stress, breakdown of family life, deviant role models, threats of nuclear war and the confusion in values which produce unstable feelings and distorted ideas, probably all contribute to aggravate violence among youth.

Despite the enormous amount of study devoted to it, a great many questions about juvenile delinquency still remained unanswered. The term covers a wide range of legally forbidden acts committed by young people who may be anything from 10 to 25 years of age. The highly varied misbehavior of these young people, who differ reatly in personal background, development, experience, and situation, is no homogeneous phenomenon. One view is that delinquent behavior develops when a youngster’s rewards in terms of money and goods, excitement, fellowship or revenge outstrip the costs of getting caught.

Under age drinking and shoplifting were the most common offenses, followed by truancy, taking drugs, vandalism, bullying, and joyriding. Over half cited to impress others and boredom as the reason for offending, followed by lack of money, peer pressure, lack of parental strictness and ability to get away with it. The extent of outhful crime is hard to judge. Since the second World War, a substantial increase in juvenile convictions has been recorded in many countries. As offenders, boys outnumber girls in a ratio of about 10:1.

Juvenile delinquency rates may rise with higher general technological economic level and in situations of varied social change. Hence Western Europe, USA and Japan have high levels of juvenile delinquency. Youth gangs are noted also in Taiwan, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Poland, USSR and Yugoslavia. Juvenile delinquency has shown an increase in such rapidly developing nations as Ghana and Kenya. Crimes against property are by far the most frequent type of offense.

These include stealing from shops, houses, and cars; and the unauthorized taking of the person ( assaults, fighting, robbery with violence ), together with sex offenses and, in industrially developed countries, traffic offenses, come next and are more common among those aged from 17 to 21. Narcotic addiction and other types of drug dependence, though not always criminal offenses, are a relatively new and disturbing form of deviance and seem to be increasing rapidly. The 1991 UK National Prisons Survey found 83 percent of lock up young offenders ad been in council care, against 2 percent of the population as a whole.

In 1992 in Britain, 110,4000 children aged 10-16 were caught breaking the law; 75 percent were boys. By far the most common crime was theft or handling of goods. Throughout the 1980’s juvenile crime fell in UK: 100,000 cautioned or convicted in 1992, 37 percent fewer than a decade earlier. The young population had also fallen, but only by 2o percent. In 1992, there were 3,764 male juveniles per 100,000 convicted or cautioned; in 1982 the figure was 5,028. The fall was the biggest among boys aged 10-13: from 2,929 to 1,927.

Violence in Schools

On January 18, 1993, Scott Pennington, a seventeen year-old student from Kentucky, shot and killed his East Carter High School teacher Deanna McDavid and janitor Marvin Hicks, and then held his twenty-two classmates at gunpoint for about fifteen minutes. On September 15, 1995, Daniel Watson, eighteen, was charged with one count of kidnapping, two counts of unlawful possession of a weapon on school property, and fifteen counts of first degree endangerment after holding a fellow student at gunpoint at his high school.

Watson had been in a fight before school, and then went home and returned with two handguns. In November of 1996, Drew Golden, 11, and Mitchell Johnson, 13, opened fire on their fellow students and teachers in Jonesboro, Arkansas, killing four students and an English teacher. Is this what should be happening in Americas schools? Should students have to be more concerned with their safety, rather than obtaining a good education? Incidences similar to the ones just described occur every year in school systems across the country.

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, fifty-seven percent of public elementary and secondary school principals reported that one or more incidents of crime/violence occurred in their schools during the 1996-1997 school year. The center also reported that ten percent of all public schools experienced one or more serious violent crimes (defined as murder, rape, or other type of sexual battery, suicide, physical attack or fight with a weapon, or robbery) during the 1996-1997 school year. Physical attacks or fights led the list of reported crimes in public schools, with about 190,000 reported incidences in 1996-1997.

Schools should be places where the objective is to give students the skills and knowledge to help them with their future; they should not be havens for violent acts. Something obviously needs to be done to decrease and hopefully one day eliminate violence in Americas school systems. There have been numerous proposals made to help the problem, but there still has not been a significant improvement in the problem nationwide. Several recent reports-one by the American Psychological Association and another by the National Education Association-show a dramatic increase in the incidence of school violence.

It is going to take a team effort by the government, communities and the schools to help reduce violence in Americas school systems. The government has attempted to address the issue of school violence. In 1994, President Bill Clinton signed the Gun-Free School Act, mandating a one-year expulsion for students who bring weapons to school. The Act also promoted the zero tolerance for weapons policies of some states and school districts. Currently, the federal government and most states also make funds available for prevention activities through anti-crime and education legislation.

This year, money was allotted in the federal budget for the hiring of more teachers in the schools. Although the government has put some effort into helping the schools, is it enough? The problem of violence of schools is often overlooked by the government and instead more emphasis is put on political scandals, foreign policy, and welfare. It seems unfair for the students who fear going to school each day that the government concentrates more on the private relations of the president and the status of people from other countries, than on the future of its own citizens.

The government needs to grant more money for the improvement of schools, both externally and internally. This money needs to be put toward the hiring of more teachers, violence prevention programs in the schools, and improvements on the school buildings. The government also should be monitoring the schools use of the zero tolerance policies, making sure that they are strictly enforced in every school across the country. The second ingredient to solving the problem of violence in schools is community initiatives.

An important one is providing an assortment of out-of-school programs to students. It is important that these programs keep youth constructively engaged when their families are unavailable, and provide them with attention from caring adults and good role models. They also need to encourage teamwork, respect, and positive personal relationships. These programs keep kids away from negative influences on the street and in the media. Helping youth find employment in the community is another important way for communities to help build the self-esteem and sense of responsibility among adolescents.

Having a job also helps youth appreciate how important staying in school is to their future career plans. The most important element to the solution of violence in schools is the improvement surrounding the actual schools. The first key is to reduce violence through personalization. Overcrowded schools and classes hurt both the educators efforts to know their students and students efforts to know one another. The result from this is often misunderstanding, frustration, and increasingly, violence. Smaller classes can enable schools to become communities in which students know and value one another as individuals.

They would also allow educators to form steady caring relationships with the students most likely to start or suffer from physical and psychological violence. School violence frequently results from conflicts that are inappropriately managed and therefore intensify. Conflict resolution programs should be offered in schools to both students and educators to give them skills to effectively and constructively handle the controversies that naturally arise in learning environments. Schools should also promote the development of good character.

The missing piece in violence prevention programs is character development though the skills of empathy and self-discipline, write character education experts Diane G. Berreth and Sheldon Berman. Without these skills, we run the risk of schools becoming locked-down and oppressive institutions built around fear rather than responsiveness. Teachers also play an essential role in dealing with school violence. Studies have shown that children consistently admire and respect those teachers that are strict in setting high standards for behavior and academic performance, and who demonstrate a personal interest in their students.

It is also important that teachers follow strict codes of conduct throughout the whole school. This code of conduct should be shared with the students, and should not be altered by the teachers. Students should never have the feeling that they might be able to get away with something, because a teacher rarely enforces the rules. It is with longing that teachers remember the days when disruptive behavior in school meant running in the halls, throwing spitballs and pulling ponytails. Today, the disruptive behavior is much more frightening.

It takes the shape of brutal beatings, stabbings, and shootings. Youth violence disrupts schools and is taking its toll on students, teachers, parents, and communities. Youth violence is threatening the entire structure of public education. The issue of school violence needs to be attended to quickly. This problem cannot be solved by the efforts of one force, but rather it will take the teamwork of the government, communities, and the schools to help reduce the violence. If policies such as the ones described are not implemented, students will continue going to school in fear.

Violence As A Social Problem

Violence is a social problem that increases over the years. Violence is not so much shown in magazines and books as it is on television and the media. This does not mean that violence on television is the only source for aggressive or violent behavior, but it is a significant contributor. Children can also pick up violence from a parent or guardian at an early age. Peers are important in a childs life. It has been psychologically proven that males are more aggressive than females.

Therefore, if a childs peers are being aggressive, their actions tend to be imitated. American children watch an average of three to four hours of television daily, which can be a powerful influence in developing value systems and shaping behavior. Hundreds of studies of the effects of media violence on children have found that children may gradually accept violence as a way to solve problems, imitate the violence they observe on television and identify with certain characters, victims or victimizers.

Parents can protect their children from excessive television violence by paying attention to the programs their children are watching and restricting them from shows known to be violent, pointing out what is wrong with the program. Another solution to this problem is to explain that the actor has not actually been hurt or killed and such violence in real life results in pain or death. Children are not born understanding the difference between right and wrong, it is learned from what they hear, see or are taught. At an early age, children look to models such as parents, guardians and even babysitters to base their actions on.

Some people fail to see that they are being imitated and looked upon as a role model from those younger than them. If a babysitter is listening to music that contains violent lyrics or profanity, they should not be shocked if the child copies it. Parents arguments are also taken in by the child. Parents should try not to show violence towards each other when around a child. They should also disapprove of the violent episodes in front of the children, stressing the belief that such behavior is not the best way to resolve a problem. A childs peers mean a lot to their attitude whether one wants to believe it or not.

It blends in with their need to fit in. Popularity is what one hopes and dreams for during their teenage years. Therefore, children try to duplicate others actions. This factor may tend to lead to racial or sexual stereotyping consequently making the child believe that anyone different from these characteristics should be punished. This takes the child into the stage of what type of music to listen to as spoken about before. Everyday we are all caught in a losing battle, the challenge of our society to preserve safety for children and protect them from violence and guns.

The facts are that violence is everywhere, it is impossible to ignore them. It even seems as though no one recognized this as their problem or responsibility. Our deteriorating sense of community is everyones problem. It hs been proven that more teenage boys die from gunfire that from car accidents. These gunshot wounds are now a leading cause of death for teenage boys. In conclusion, we as a society should realize that its never too young to learn. We all picked up certain characteristics from someone.

To offset peer pressure among friends and classmates, parents should contact other parents and agree to enforce similar rules about what their children should watch, play with or stay around. If parents have serious difficulties setting limits, or deep concerns about how their child is reacting to certain things, they should contact a child and adolescent psychiatrist for help defining the problem. If children take up violent acts, they are most likely to carry it with them throughout their adult life and then it may eventually become seriously dangerous.

The Epidemic Of Domestic Violence

A problem has become known and to many, they feel that it’s about time that the general public has taken notice. This problem has been a taboo for centuries and in the mid nineties it has chosen to let itself be known, the problem that I am talking about is domestic violence, it has ruined families, and demoralized the victims for years and now because of the “trial of the century” we finally are allowed to discuss it in detail, without fear of reprisal, now we get to familiarize ourselves with it and eventually after we get to know all about it we can, through treatment, get rid of it.

In this paper, I will discuss roblems with the so called epidemic of domestic violence. This entire paper will be about domestic violence, and because of that I feel it is important to note that “in most families men and women do not engage in physically abusive behavior” (The Brown U. ), but because the media feels that it is their public duty to deceive us into believing that this problem is an “epidemic” (Domestic V. ) we feel that, that is the case.

Webster’s dictionary defines epidemic as “a rapid spreading of a disease; to many people at the same time”, this is not the case with domestic violence, one it didn’t ust happen overnight, it has just been popularized overnight, domestic violence has been going on from as far back as anyone can remember and probably farther than that, and two, this is not affecting many people at the same timem, because, as I’ve stated before, “in most families men and women do not engage in physically abusive behavior”.

If you as the reader gets anything out of this paper, it is important to me as the writer, that you find that, while domestic violence is a major problem for some families, it is by no means an epidemic. The major reason domestic violence has become so widespread over the last couple f years is because of the O. J. Simpson trial, as one person put it “the O. J. Simpson case would do for domestic violence what Anita Hill did for sexual harassment”.

The trial of the century brought a much needed attention to a issue that for too long was pushed to the back burner; domestic violence was a major issue in the case and it became evident, through the mass publicity of the case, that women weren’t crying wolf all these years, because of “the murder of Nicole Brown … the media would focus squarely on and engage in an unprecedented and lengthy dialogue about the issue of domestic violence” (Domestic V. it seems to always take something tragic for us to listen, but from this particular tragedy allot of good has come out of it and we can take heart in the fact that Nicole Brown did not die in vain.

Why do men abuse in the first place? That question has allot more than one answer to it and among them are “he might be under stress, he was beaten as a child, he lost his job … ” (Domestic V. for B. , the possibilities are endless, women or the abused has always look at these reasons as excuses for the abusers to justify their doings, but sometimes men, or the abusers, have a legitimate case in the reasons why they batter, ome, not all, but some men cannot help it, like the alcoholic who cannot stop drinking or the compulsive gambler who can’t stop gambling, an abuser hits because something clicked inside of him when he was younger and now he can’t stop.

The reasons why someone might find it appeasing to hit someone else is, he might of been raised in an abusive household, maybe the abuser was abused, physically, or made to feel inferior by someone else and now he is taking it out on the person who he feel he can beat, his significant other. After all is said and done we must remember that the ultimate choice to ecome an abuser was made by the person himself, but like the alcoholic and the compulsive gambler with “intensive” treatment they can be helped to control their problem.

It’s weird and even sad that with “over 4 million domestic assaults on women last year” (Domestic V. or B. ) it took the O. J. Simpson trial to finally illustrate the problem that some families have problems and a problem that caused “2000-4000 women killed each year” (Family V. ). When we as the public started looking away from the trial itself and into abusive nature in people, what we saw shocked us, it shocked us into realizing hat for years the abused has gone unheard, when we saw that “60% of women killed were killed by their husbands or boyfriends” (Domestic V. for B. ), it made both women and men feel ashamed that for all these years we didn’t listen to the cries of the abused.

In the past and today, when abused women wanted to seek help, the first people that they contacted were the police, but before 1994 the police departments across the nation took these calls “as low priority calls” (Family V. ), one of the reason was that police officers thought that domestic violence was a family problem best dealt with within the ramework of the family, but the major reason was, it seemed that in almost all of domestic abuse case the victims was the main protector of the abuser, “sometimes one or both spouses told police that they had already resolved their problems” (Family V. . Police officials and prosecutors had a hard time getting the perpetrators the proper punishment and treatment they deserved because, whether out of love or out of fear, women wouldn’t press charges or testify against their spouses.

Before O. J. and all the hysteria that followed during and after the trial, arguably he most dominant voice for women in the fight against domestic violence was and probably still is, Dr. Lenor Walker. Through years of work in her private psychotherapy practice she developed the theory of “battered women syndrome” (Domestic V. for B. in 1980, this theory gives us an understanding as to why a woman who is being systemically beaten by her husband or boyfriend does not leave the relationship right away or ever.

The theory that Dr. walker came up with has three stages, one “the tension building stage” (Domestic V. ), this stage consists of allot of minor verbal altercations and the next stage, the acute battering incident” (Domestic V. ) stage is just an escalation of stage one, it becomes more physical and most often “the abusers cannot stop even if the woman is severally injured” (Domestic V. for B. ) and finally the “love contribution stage” (Domestic V. or the “honeymoon period” (Domestic V. ), this is the stage that inevitably causes the woman to stay in the relationship, in this stage the “abuser becomes at once charming, loving … willing to do anything to be forgiven” (Domestic V. ); some speculate that “sometimes women want to get to the honeymoon period so badly that they ‘provoke’ the iolent episode” (Domestic V. for B. ).

It is mainly because of this stage, the “love contribution stage”, that police and prosecutors had such a hard time getting abusers locked up, the mistreated, more often than not, believed the abusers and eventually decide to give them another chance.

The before mentioned cycle is one part of the “battered women syndrome”, the other part of Dr. Lenor Walker’s theory is that after years of this cycle and “because of years of repressed rage, rage she swallowed so that they wouldn’t get beaten, they can suddenly snap and become violent themselves” (Domestic V. for B. ). This violent rage gainst men from women, which sometimes leads to the woman killing the man, has been going on for years, but it is only until Dr. Walker came up with the theory in 1980 that we have an understanding as to why.

We are well aware of the fact that women get abuse, but it might suprise us that “approximately 2 million husbands compared to 1. 8 million wives experienced at least one or more serious forms of spousal abuse” (Domestic V. ),I understand that the punishment that a man can inflict on a woman is much greater than what a woman can do to a man, but it is important for us to know that abuse isn’t as simple as, woman equals victim and an equals the evil abuser; numerous researchers found that “when physical abuse does occur men are as likely to be the victims as women” (The Brown U. . What most men find is that their in a lose, lose situation, if they take the abuse, and report it, they are considered “inferior” and if they fight back, because they are perceived as the aggressors, they are the ones who get arrested.

The solution for men, sadly will not come anytime soon and if by chance it does, it will take a gender “swap” O. J Simpson case, were the dead will be the ex-husband and his female friend and the accused will be the former asketball player, current hall of famer / actress / basketball commentator abusive ex-wife.

They’re two major problem with the way we look at domestic violence, one, which I have previously mentioned, is that men are always perceived as being the abuser and two, the misrepresenting of facts that the media has sought to bring to the public’s eye, an example of this is that it is said that “4000 thousand women are killed by their spouse every year” (Domestic V. ), but at the same time “in 1992 in a high risk group of women aged 18-34 there was a total of 702 fatalities” (Domestic V. , granted, one death due to omestic violence is one death too much, but to exaggerate the fact by that great of an amount does the cause of stopping domestic violence a great mis-justice.

Another widely used fact that no doubt is true, but the way that it is portrayed distorts the truth, is that “at least one fifth of all emergency room visits by women are the results of being beaten by men”(Domestic V. for B. , again, the striking blow that the media pushes would be lost if they disclose the fact that this survey was done in an “inner city population of Detroit” (Domestic V. ), there’s two problems with that, one because the survey was done in an nner city, it cannot be appropriately projected nationwide, just as if they were to do a survey in Anchorage, Ak and say that nationwide, only 1 in 200 women in the emergency room are there because of domestic violence; problem two is that the survey also “includes men hit by women” (Domestic V. . Looking at the facts given out by the media becomes less shocking when the entire story is analyzed and realized. Because domestic violence has become such a well known problem, it has become common knowledge that unless something is done, it will continue to be a problem for families to deal with.

Stopping School Violence In Your Community

2 years, 7 months and 3 days ago, our lives were changed forever. This marks the date of April 20, 1999. When the students arrived that day at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado they had no idea that 12 students and 1 teacher wouldnt be leaving by the end of the day. What could ever drive two high school students to the point where the only answer was death and suicide? Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold took the only answer to their graves. And it gets worse. Since Columbine, Georgia, Virginia, Oregon, Michigan and Tennessee have had violence plaguing there schools with children as young as 9 years old committing the acts.

School should be the last place that a parent should fear for their childs life. Juvenile homicide is now twice as Rocco 2 common as it was in the 1980s and that statistic is rising. To stop a problem like this you must know where it starts. To do this, you need to know what drove these kids to commit such an act. It seems that most politicians blame television and video games for the violence in the school system. People keep saying video games and movies caused the violence. It’s absolutely the reverse.

Part of the attraction young people have to violent video games is simply a reaction to their imprisoning school system and the harsher and wilder the video games or the speed metal music, the more inspired the young people feel, because there’s nothing else in the cultural environment to inspire them (Sischy 1999: 2). Jason Dorsey, a motivational speaker and author of the book “Can Students End School Violence? ” believes its the fear of being excluded. The fear is not that they will get shot or stabbed. Its that they will have to sit in the cafeteria all alone during lunch.

Or that they will raise their hand to ask a question and be made fun of (Creegan 2000: 1). Rocco 3 Fear and low self-esteem seem to go hand and hand now a day in our school system. The two together can lead to a dangerous combination that has the power to not only change lives, but end them as well. Once a students self-esteem is affected and they no longer care about their future, then the physical violence starts (Creegan 2000: 2). It makes sense then to start at an early age before self-esteem and discrimination has a chance to enter a childs life.

Myrna Shure, PhD, a psychology professor at MCP Hahnemann University believes that If they can grow up as thinking and feeling human beings who care about themselves and others,” she said, “they will be more empathic, successful at making friends and will be able to make responsible decisions in light of their potential consequences (Volz 1999: 1). How do you make sure that children grow up thinking like that without taking away their right to be individuals? The biggest problem is that there is no easy solution.

The panel on school violence discussed a variety of solutions after school programs, mental health counseling and student problem Rocco 4 solving. But what they all quickly realized was the sobering truth that there are no easy solutions (Thomas 1999: 1). To heal the nation of a wound like this it is going to take time and cooperation between parents, students, the school systems and the community. Parents need to be there for their children. You can make a difference in our society, just by being present in the life of a child, whether its your child, or someone elses.

Just by being a friend, a mentor, a sounding board just by carrying enough to show up (Case 1998: 1). Students need to learn that what they do and say really affect the life of someone else. What may been meant as a harmless joke could end up being devastating to someone else. Statistics show that most school shootings in the U. S. could have been prevented by someone who had knowledge of the shootings in advance (http://Ehelp911. Com). Sites like this one allow students to get involved in the fight against school violence.

Teen Violence Essay

Teen Violence has become an appalling problem in the US today. Statistics show that teen homicides have gone up 300% in the last 30 years. Suicide rate for 15 to 19 year olds has tripled to 10 per 100,000 in the past 30 years. Firearm death rate for 15 to 19 year olds has gone up 43% between 1984 to 1988. What seems to be our problem? Volcanic anger due to kids constantly picking on each other. Maybe teens just dont have any skills to vent the anger. Could it be that there are no trusted adults to turn to? Possibly, the easy access to firearms.

The results of these issues are dead and wounded students, faculty, and staff at schools in all parts of our nation. In school violence is just one of the many branches of teen violence, but it is one of the most important and most prevalent at this time. At any rate, it is unwarranted, intolerable, and needs to be stopped. If present trends continue, American schools, colleges, and universities will be increasingly unsafe. More resources will have to be allocated to campus security and crime prevention. (The editors 6) Contrary to what many people may think the most extreme forms of violence are rare.

The most important issue here is that students need a safe place to learn, and teachers and staff need a safe working environment. Personal security may become a major factor when students, especially women students, select their college. Minor issues or daily pressures are what causes kids to snap. This violence may eventually cause kids to be scared away from school programs like after school activities, and may also cause students to leave in fear every day. Who exactly is to blame for this out-lashing? Some say teachers are the problem.

They say that teachers put to much pressure on students, and some times even pick on students. Could this be? Are teachers too hard on kids? Do they single certain students out and pick on them? Others will say that all of the blame should be put on parents. Its the parents fault, they dont know how to raise their kids. That statement has been said many times when discussing the issue of teen violence. If it is the parents fault then what can we do to fix that? Take their kids away from them? Many say that its constant pressure and teasing from peers.

Kids are teased in school. That is a fact and it has always been a fact. Kids have teased each other since the beginning of time, so why is this all of a sudden a major issue today? Kids didnt shoot each other in the 1920s. So why blame it on teasing? While I disagree with teasing, it just does not seem to be a great reason to shoot someone. Could it just be the communities kids are being raised in now? Do we expose our teens to too much violence and street life? Maybe we should look to the communities and how they are trying to solve the violence issues.

Our kids dont play stickball in the street anymore, or go down to the local baseball diamond to hit some balls or play a game of baseball. Instead they go to clubs and do drugs, or hang out on the streets with friends doing nothing constructive, or they just sit in the house all day doing nothing but playing on the computer because they dont have friends or choose to not socialize. What are we so afraid of? Being a normal civilized person and talking out our problems? Meeting new people and doing something to further our well being? Who knows? All we know is that something needs to change.

How can our issue of teen violence be prevented, one way is programs. Programs that teach teens how to cope with problems in a non-violent way. Programs that allow kids to have a mentor or a mediator. Another solution would be to keep guns out of kids hands. Lock them up in cabinets, and use child safety locks. There is no need to ban guns completely. We have had guns since our country started and we never had a problem with shootings until now, so there is no reason to jump to the extreme and completely take away the right to bear firearms given to us by our fore fathers.

Everyone must pitch in. This isnt a problem settled by just one person. Everyone must know the signs, we have to put on more positive TV shows, and provide healthy environments for our teens. How can you help? Parents can help by following these few steps: Do some research, lock up your guns, and use child safety locks. Get others to discuss the signs with your children, they will not want to discuss the signs with you. If you notice a problem get help as soon as possible. Teach that guns and other weapons kill and hurt. Show children how to settle an argument with out resorting to violence.

Everyone that interacts with your child including relatives, siblings, teachers, and baby-sitters need to set a positive example. You can also look for other ways other than guns to protect yourself for instance: locks, jamming devices, a dog, security systems, or self-defense classes. Get the community to help by asking them to follow some simple steps also. Ask them to provide safe places for children. An active mentor program could provide a lost child with a role model. Have them provide positive events like carnivals, or circuses. A paid public class could help with coping.

If you recognize the signs in someone elses child try to help. The neighborhood could launch public education programs to raise awareness. Allowing a place for someone to report a stolen weapon anonymously would help. Everyone needs to participate in the neighborhood watch. Everyone must know the facts! In a school situation, a positive environment is imperative. A peer mediation program must be offered along with support during major problems. Schools need to encourage students to report any citing that could lead to violent situations.

Show students how to deal with problems with out violence. Start groups against the issue that include student participation. All of these things will not work with out youth empowerment. Kids need to want to help themselves, you cant just tell a teen what he or she wants or feels. Positive actions, feelings, etc. are needed. We need to limit the amount of violence on TV along with limiting negative actions towards teens. Without knowledge nothing will persevere. If you dont know what your trying to fix then you wont be able to fix it.

In conclusion, teen violence has become and appalling problem in our society today. The blame shouldnt be put on one group or one person. This problem is a joint effect of American culture and society today. Contrary to what people think the issue hasnt become to extreme yet, but it will if we dont do something about it. Everyone must help to stop this problem, because not just one person can fix it. Know the facts and try to help. A chain is only as strong as its links, and without knowledge and self motivations we have a very weak chain and our problem will never be fixed.

Domestic Violence Essay

Domestic Violence Against Women is a global issue reaching across national boundaries as well as socio-economic, cultural, racial and class distinctions. It is a problem without frontiers. Not only is the problem widely dispersed geographically, but its incidence is also extensive, making it a typical and accepted behavior. Only recently, within the past twenty-five years, has the issue been “brought into the open as a field of concern and study” (Violence Against Women in the Family, page 38).

Domestic violence is not an isolated, individual event but rather a attern of repeated behaviors that the abuser uses to gain power and control over the victim. Unlike stranger-to-stranger violence, in domestic violence situations the same perpetrator repeatedly assaults the same victim. These assaults are often in the form of physical injury, but may also be in the form of sexual assault. However the abuse is not only physical and sexual, but also psychological.

Psychological abuse means intense and repetitive humiliation, creating isolation, and controlling the actions of the victim through intimidation or manipulation. Domestic violence tends to become more frequent nd severe over time. Oftentimes the abuser is physically violent sporadically, but uses other controlling tactics on a daily basis. All tactics have profound effects on the victim. Perpetrators of domestic violence can be found in all age, racial, ethnic, cultural, socio-economic, linguistic, educational, occupational and religious groups.

Domestic violence is found in all types of intimate relationships whether the individuals are of the same or opposite sex, are married or dating, or are in a current or past intimate relationship. There are two essential elements in every domestic violence situation: the victim and buser have been intimately involved at some point in time, and the abuser consciously chooses to use violence and other abusive tactics to gain control over the victim. In some instances, the abuser may be female while the victim is male; domestic violence also occurs in gay and lesbian relationships.

However, 95% of reported assaults on spouses or ex-spouses are committed by men against women (MTCAWA e-mail interview) “It is a terrible and recognizable fact that for many people, home is the least safe place” (Battered Dreams, 9). Domestic violence is real violence, ften resulting in permanent injuries or death. Battering is a widespread societal problem with consequences reaching far beyond individual families. It is conduct that has devastating effects for individual victims, their children and their communities.

In addition to these immediate effects, there is growing evidence that violence within the “family becomes the breeding ground for other social problems such as substance abuse, juvenile delinquency, and violent crimes of all types” (MTCAWA e-mail interview). Domestic violence against women is not merely a domestic issue; but, rather a complex socio-economical risis that threatens the interconnected equilibrium of the entire social structure. Causes & Effects “Within the family there is a historical tradition condoning violence” (Violence Against Women: The Missing Agenda, 29).

Domestic violence against women accounts for approximately 40 to 70% of all violent crime in North America. However, the figures don’t tell the entire story; less than 10% of such instances are actually reported to police (The Living Family, 204). The causes of domestic violence against women are numerous. Many claim stress is the substantial cause of domestic conflict resulting in violence. Though stress in the workplace is a contributing factor, it is by no means the substantial one. Many people suffer from stress disorders, but most don’t resort to violence as a means of release.

It is apparent that the substantial causes have more to do with the conditioning of males culturally, and within the family of orientation than anything else. Historically, women have been treated more as belongings than human beings; Old English Common Law permitted a man to abuse his wife and kids, as long as he didn’t use a stick thicker than the width of his thumb–“Rule of Thumb” (The Living Family, 201). Culturally, men have been conditioned to repress their feelings of emotion–always acting like the tough guy, the linebacker, the cowboy.

But, when confronted with an emotionally difficult conflict, one which is impossible to shove down deep, they irrupt in volcanic proportions, often taking out years of repressed rage on those closest to them, in particular their own family. However, what seems to be the most significant cause of the male tactic of violent conflict resolution is violence within the family of orientation. Statistics show that 73% of male abusers had grown up in a family where they aw their mother beaten, or experienced abuse themselves (MTCAWA e-mail interview).

Using the (relatively accepted) Freudian model, which claims that all mental illness stems from traumatic childhood trauma, one can see how there is a direct correlation between violence in the family of orientation and violence within the family of procreation. And, indeed, abusers are mentally ill, though the illness tends to be more subtle than others: many abusers display a Jekyll&Hyde personality, where they are nothing like their domestic selves outside the home. In most cases the cycle of violence starts slowly; it usually consists f a slap in the face or a hard shove.

But the frequency and degree of violence escalates with time. The abuser will justify the abuse by pointing out his wife’s inadequacies and faults. But, no matter how wrong the wife is, there is little, if no, justification for spousel abuse within a civil society. The real issue at hand is the neurosis within the male psyche. Just as in rape, the key issue is control. Male abusers are laden with fear about losing power. They inflict physical abuse on their spouse to prove that they have, still have, and will have control over their spouses (and/or children. ) They won’t stop there either.

The pattern of abuse involves severe mental torture and humiliation–blaming, threatening, ignoring, isolating, forcing sex, monitoring phone calls, and restricting any form of social life. It is a vicious cycle of abuse, where the wife is almost literally chained to the husband. Her self-esteem has been obliterated. She is financially, emotionally, and functionally helpless. She is incapable of reaching out for help for herself or for her children. At this point the abuse gets more routine; the abuser sites his partner’s pathetic state as more reason to beat her.

And the ictim sinks deeper, and more beatings ensue. She has been infected with psychological-AIDS; she has no defense (“immune system”) to combat the disease of abuse. For women, escaping an abusive relationship is VERY difficult. And the abuse usually doesn’t stop at the discretion of the male. An in-depth study of all one-on-one murder and non-negligent manslaughter cases in Canada from 1980 to 1984 found that 62% of female victims were killed by a male partner (Violence Against Women Homepage). It is painfully clear that victims have little but two choices: leave or die. Sadly, the latter is the easier one.

Domestic Violence as a Health Issue The World Health Organization defines health as “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity” (In the Health of Women: A Global Perspective, 78). Based on this, domestic violence against women is clearly a health problem. In 1984, the U. S. Surgeon General declared domestic violence against women as the number ONE health problem (Violence Against Women Homepage). Physical violence is the most basic form of domestic violence, leading to extensive injury, unsuccessful pregnancies and even murder.

As mentioned above, in Canada 62% of women murdered were killed by an intimate male partner. These are deaths caused by a preventable social problem. Actual or threatened physical violence, psychological violence and the denial of physical and economic resources all have an enormous impact on women’s mental health. “A history of victimization is seen as a strong risk factor for the development of mental health problems” (MTCAWA e-mail interview). These problems take many forms, all affecting women’s ability to attain a basic quality of life for herself and her family.

Abuse is strongly associated with lcoholism and drug use in women (Facts About Domestic Violence). It also can lead to “fatigue and passivity coupled with an extreme sense of worthlessness” (Violence Against Women in the Family, 78 ). These symptoms together remove any initiative and decision making ability from the victim. This lethargy, coupled with economic barriers, makes escape from the situation very difficult. The lack of initiative also thwarts women’s abilities to participate in activities outside of the home.

High levels of stress and depression are also extremely common mental health problems for victims of family violence, often leading to uicide (Facts About Domestic Violence). In the United States, one quarter of suicide attempts by white women and one half of attempts by African American women are preceded by abuse (In the Health of Women: A Global Perspective, 128). The World Bank’s analysis found domestic violence to be a major cause of disability and death among women; the burden of family violence is comparable to that of HIV, tuberculosis, cardiovascular disease or cancer (Domestic Violence Against Women: A Global Issue, 29).

In industrialized nations one in five healthy days of life are lost to women age 15 to 44 due to domestic iolence (Fact Sheet About Domestic Violence) Domestic violence “diverts the scarce resources of national health care systems to the treatment of a preventable social ill” (Violence Against Women in the Family, 87). Medical costs for the treatment of abused women total at least 3 to 5 billion dollars annually in the United States. Battered women in the United States are four to five times more likely than non-battered women to require psychiatric treatment, and over one million women in the U.

S. use emergency medical services for injuries related to battering each year. Finally, amilies in the United States in which domestic violence occurs use doctors eight times more often, visit the emergency room six times more often and use six times more prescription drugs than the general population (Facts About Domestic Violence. ) A Socio-Economic Crisis Domestic violence against women is not an individual or family problem. It is an important social issue. Using the Systems Theory as a theoretical framework helps show the resonating effect of such violence.

The family unit is one of many sub-systems. Together, all these different sub-systems make up the one big system (i. e. , society). The human body serves as a good example: when one organ (sub-system) is malfunctioning, all other organs are effected (other sub-systems). This will have an effect on the whole body itself (society). Although the family unit is only one among the many sub-systems, it is considered to be the most important of them all–the heart, if you will.

Since the family unit is responsible for the socialization of children who will later go on to participate in other sub-systems, than it is logical to assume that a deterioration in the crucial family unit can result in a deterioration within other sub-systems, and of course, the entire system itself. As mentioned above, the sub-system of health care is feeling the pressure. Something as preventable as domestic violence against women is diverting funds from an already under-funded health care system. There are people out there who need serious medical treatment, but will never, or at the very most, will get insufficient treatment.

In the U. S. , domestic violence against women ranks as one of the most expensive health problems (Facts About Domestic Violence). Monies allocated to the medical treatment of abused women (3 to 5 billion dollars annually) diverts much needed funds from such already nder-funded institutions as education, law enforcement, social services etc. Therefore the possibility exists that adults of the future will be sparsely educated delinquents; crime will be on the increase; and important social services won’t be able to look out for the welfare of the people–such as shelters for abused women.

The result is long term decay within the entire system, which will add further to the decay within the family, which will cause the entire vicious cycle to continue. As previously mentioned, 73% of male abusers were abused, or saw abuse as children. Thus an epidemic of violence within the family of orientation is a rimary cause of psychological disfunction–in specific, violent conflict resolution–which is responsible for the breakdown of the entire social order.

U. S. Justice Department statistics show that at least 80% of men in prison grew up in violent homes (Facts About Domestic Violence. ) And in at least half of the wife abusing families, the children were battered as well. And 63% of boys ages 11 to 20 who commit homicide, murder the man who was abusing their mother. As mentioned initially, violence within the family “family becomes the breeding ground for other social problems such as substance abuse, juvenile elinquency, and violent crimes of all types. ” The all important family unit is the centre of social universe.

All other institutions revolve around it. If the sun were to blow up the entire galaxy would go with it. Conclusion Domestic violence against women must be perceived as a socio-economical problem rather than a private issue imbedded within family — a domestic issue which can be easily ignored. It must receive appropriate attention from the various institutions within our society as an issue affecting the overall standard of living. It is not only a women’s issue, but also a problem that threatens the harmony within our communities.

Evolution of Media Violence

The evolution of broadcast programming can be identified into four stages. The first stage covers the debut of commercial radio in the 1920’s. At that time the tone was considered proper, and formal. For several years radio broadcasting emphasized classical or semi-classical music, and historical drama. Commercials were kept brief and always discreet In the second stage of programming, which was called The Golden Age of Radio, shows were action adventures.

Vaudeville-Comedy was also popular. The hard ships of the 1930’s and then World War II, made it important for citizens to be able to relax as adio brought popular entertainers and adventure stories into their homes. The third stage of programming lasted from 1945 until the early 1950’s, when television had a explosive growth. Television was preserved as “radio with pictures. ” Many entertainers and entire programs were transferred successfully from radio to television.

At the beginning of the fourth stage, known as The Golden Age of Television, variety shows were the most popular program format. Another television staple of this era was the western. In the late 1950’s action-adventure became popular. Since the 1960’s there has been a increase in violence in the media (television). In 1968 censorship laws were relaxed in favor of a rating system that allowed any type of subject matter to be filmed. This permitted Hollywood to specialize in films featuring excessive violence.

Many individuals and citizen groups have expressed concern about the level of violence in television programs, particularly in action-adventure series and cartoons. They feel that viewers, especially children, may learn to see violence as the way to resolve conflicts. Television can influence peoples mental picture of the world. This is especially true for younger viewers who rely heavily on television and other media for their understanding of the world beyond their neighborhoods.

Television today is failing to provide a complete, unbiased picture of reality. United Stated has a long standing tradition of freedom of speech, and freedom of press. These freedoms have hampered the government in attempting to directly limit censor the depiction of violence on television. In reason times the networks and producers have felt pressure from concern citizens who are critical of the violence displayed on television.

Domestic Violence A Serious Form Of Abuse

I chose this particular topic because I have a friend that was in an abusive relationship. I didnt really understand why she stayed with him for so long. I first started suspecting that she was being abused was when I was on the phone with her and heard him screaming at her in the background. She yelled back and played it off like nothing was wrong. She said usually he was a good guy, but merely had a bad day. I kept asking her why she stayed with him and she always replied that she loved him. Fortunately, they arent together anymore. She finally got tired of all the abuse and called my uncle who is a police officer.

He came over, made him pack all of his stuff, and informed him that if he ever came back there would be more trouble than he could handle. Oddly enough, she still says that she misses him. I can only imagine how much more complicated it would be for a woman with children. In the literature, I expect to find that there are many more women being abused than people really realize. I also expect to find that most women stay because they are financially dependent, or they dont want their children to grow up ithout a father. Also, Im assuming most women are scared for their lives if they attempt to leave.

To research my predictions I chose to read articles from Analyzing Social Problems, The Journal of Marriage and Family, and The Journal of Interpersonal When people refer to the word violence, they usually dont think of domestic violence. However, domestic violence is a very serious form of abuse. According to the article Severity of Violence Against Women by Intimate Partners and Associate Abuse of Alcohol and/or Illicit Drugs by the Perpetrator, a current or former intimate partner hysically and/or sexually assaults eight out of every 1,000 women (Wilson 2000:996).

The National Crime Victimization Survey reveals that more than 1. million incidents of violence against a current or former spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend occur in America each year, and about 85% of these victims are women (Greenfield et al. 1998). While people have heard that most assaults occur to women by their mates each year, few know that men are also assaulted at home. Many of these assaults go unreported. The relationship of alcohol to intimate partner violence remains significant in studies. Mens drinking patterns, especially binge drinking, are directly associated with marital violence across all ethnic groups and social classes.

The latest studies show that 1,800 murders were committed by an intimate partner in 1996, with three out of four victims being women (Wilson, 2000:997). Violence is a learned trait that can by brought on by the affects of alcohol. As I researched further, I learned about the Social Learning Theory in the article, Harsh Physical Discipline in Childhood and Violence in Later Romantic Involvement; the Mediating Role of Problem Behaviors. The Social Learning Theory suggests that those who are subjected to harsh discipline learn that violence can be an effective way to change behaviors of others.

Harsh physical punishment in childhood is directly related to greater perpetration of violence against an intimate partner late in life( Swinford 2000: 508). Children treated with such physical aggression learn that it is permissible within the context of intimate relationships and that violence is justified when someone is guilty of wrong doing. Research suggests that wives are more likely to e victims of spousal abuse if they were subjected to severe physical discipline as a child (Swinford, 2000: 510). A family is considered the fundamental building block of society.

Whether or not that family has a negative or positive impact on society depends on their actions. As described in the article, Domestic violence: Hitting us Where We Live, the family has also been described as a cradle of violence and the marriage license as a hitting license (Rouse 1997: 17). Many frustrating events occur within the family and outside frustrations can be carried over into and expressed within the family. After a bad day at the office, family members become handy scapegoats for their anger. It gives the abuser release and a certain power over their victim.

One reason women and children are targets for violence in the home is that misconduct towards them is not sufficiently costly to the perpetrator and they are actually rewarded when the victim complies (Rouse 2000: 19). Often, women are afraid to leave their abuser. They fear for their lives, and often they become dependent, either financially or physically. There is an intense involvement when a family is created. By leaving, the victim feels a sense of failure and a sense of There are many more women being abused than most people believe.

What surprised me was that many men are being abused as well. Its not often talked about, but it should be looked at equally because in either case people are being abused. Victims stay with their abusers because they are mentally dependent, and afraid for their lives. Also, if children are involved, they dont want them to be without a father. Furthermore, learning about the Social Learning Theory, we need to stop the violence before it becomes a pattern in the family.

Domestic Violence A Serious Issue

Domestic violence is a serious issue in todays society that is often overlooked. It affects people of all ages, races, and sexes, yet still not many people know anything about it. There are many different types of Domestic violence in families. They include: child abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, and physical abuse. All of which are very traumatic for the victims involved. Child abuse is one of the top types of violence that is often left unknown. The reason it is never reported is because often, the child being abused is scared to tell an authority. In many cases the abuser would threaten the child.

In other cases the abuser would tell the child that it was their fault they were being beaten. After being told something like this the child is scared for their own safety if anyone were to find out their secret, so they do not tell anyone about what is going on in their lives. Some cases of child abuse are taken to the extreme and a young person ends up dead. Of all the child murder cases 61% of the time the mother is the murderer. The statistics are scary, but until the kids who are being abused are brave enough to tell someone about their problem it will never change.

Sexual abuse is the second highest type of violence that is left untold. In this case the victim is often too embarrassed to tell someone, or in many cases they feel that they may have somehow lead the person on and that is why the incident or incidents occurred. Sexual abuse is described as any kind of sexual contact or communication that leaves the person feeling violated, hurt, or violated. You may ask what provokes violator to do such a thing? Many studies show that 33% of the offenders had been sexually abused as a child.

This means that they learned of the abuse when they were younger and maybe thought that was the only way to do it. This can be a real problem and lead to very dangerous outcomes. The third type of domestic violence in families is emotional abuse. This is where one person in the family verbally abuses someone else. They would say things that would lead the person to believe they are worthless or are not good enough for anyone. This type of abuse causes no physical harm but is very damaging to the victims self-conscience.

There are not a lot of people that report these types of abuse cases, but there are more reported than with the child abuse cases and the sexual abuse cases. When people do not report in this case they are usually not for sure that what they are receiving is an actual form of violence or abuse. The forth and final type of domestic violence is physical abuse in the family. It is where one person, usually a spouse, is physically beating their partner. Child abuse also falls into this category. It is important to remember in these cases that women are not the only victims of physical abuse.

Men are also often victims. This may seem unlikely because men are usually the taller and stronger of the spouses. In one survey 18. 6% of the men interviewed reported being abused by their spouse, while only 12% of the women interviewed reported being abused by their spouse. This proves the statement that it does not matter what sex, age, or race you are to be a victim of domestic violence. In conclusion, there are different kinds of domestic violence, but all kinds are very hurtful and damaging to a family and its members.

To stop the violence you must make sure facts and information about violence in homes are well publicized. If they are not the statistics will never change and the amount of domestic violence cases we are seeing today will never drop. There are, however, several ways to get help if you are a victim of domestic violence or know someone who is. You can either tell a school authority, police, or call a hotline specially made to help people in distress. Hopefully soon we can decrease or eliminate the domestic violence occurring in families all around the world.

Violence In Entertainment And Its Effect On Society

Does entertainment influence society’s attitude towards violent behavior? In order to fully answer this question we must first understand what violence is. Violence is the use of one’s powers to inflict mental or physical injury upon another, examples of this would be rape or murder. Violence in entertainment reaches the public by way of television, movies, plays, and novels.

Through the course of this essay it will be proven that violence in entertainment is a major factor in the escalation of violence in society, once this is proven we will take all of the evidence that has been shown throughout this paper and come o a conclusion as to whether or not violence in entertainment is justified and whether or not it should be censored. Television with its far reaching influence spreads across the globe. Its most important role is that of reporting the news and maintaining communication between people around the world.

Television’s most influential, yet most serious aspect is its shows for entertainment. Violent children’s shows like Mighty Morphin Power Rangers and adult shows like NYPD Blue and Homicide almost always fail to show human beings being able to resolve their differences in a non-violent manner, nstead they show a reckless attitude that promotes violent action first with reflection on the consequences later. In one episode of NYPD Blue three people were murdered in the span of an hour. Contemporary television creates a seemingly insatiable appetite for amusement of all kinds without regard for social or moral benefits” (Schultze 41).

Findings over the past twenty years by three Surgeon Generals, the Attorney General’s Task Force on Family Violence, the American Medical Association, the National Institute of Mental Health, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and other medical authorities indicate that televised violence is harmful to all of us, but particularly to the mental health of children (Medved 70-71).

In 1989 the results of a five year study by the American Psychological Association indicated that the average child has witnessed 8,000 murders and 100,000 other acts of violence on television by the time he or she has completed sixth grade. In further studies it was determined that by the time that same child graduates from high school he or she will have spent 22,000 hours watching television, wice as many hours as he or she has spent in school (Bruno 124).

In a study by the Centers for Disease Control, published by the JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association), it was shown that homicide rates had doubled between the introduction of television in the 1950’s and the end of the study in 1994. In that same study other possible causes for the vast increases in violence were studied, “the ‘baby boom’ effect, trends in urbanization, economic trends, trends in alcohol abuse, the role of capital punishment, civil unrest, the availability of guns, and exposure to television”(Lamson 32).

Each of these purported causes was tested in a variety of ways to see whether it could be eliminated as a credible contributor to doubling the crime rate in the United States, and one by each of them was invalidated, except for television. Children average four hours of television per day, and in the inner city that increases to as much as eleven hours a day, with an average of eight to twelve violent incidents per hour. It is also interesting to note that violence occurs some fifty-five times more often on television than it does in the real world (Medved 156).

FBI and census data show the homicide arrest rate for eventeen-year-olds more than doubled between 1985 and 1991, and the rates for fifteen-and sixteen-year-olds increased even faster. Movies also add their fair share to the problem of violence in society. “Researchers have established that copycat events are not an anomaly. Statistically-speaking, they are rare, but predictable, occurences. Television shows, novels, but especially movies-all can trigger copycat violence” (Medved 72).

As recently as November of 1995, New York City officials believed that the burning of a toll-booth clerk was a result of copycat violence, resulting from similar scene in the movie Money Train. In 1994, Nathan Martinez shot and killed his stepmother and half sister after watching the movie Natural Born Killers at least six times. “Later, Martinez, who had shaved his head and wore granny sun glasses like Natural Born Killer’s main character Mickey Knox, reportedly told a friend, “It’s nothing like the movies”(Purtell 57).

In a 1993 film, The Program, there was a scene showing college football players lying in the center of a highway in an attempt to show their courage and dedication to their sport. This movie was later blamed for inspiring eal-life imitators; (one of whom died). In numorous experiments based at pre-schools, researchers have observed children playing before and after seeing violent movies and television shows. “Following the violent program the children’s play is invaribly more aggressive. They are much more likely to hit, punch, kick, and grab to get their way.

In other words, violent entertainment teaches children how to use aggression for personal gain” (Medved 75). It is also hard to believe that movies like Rambo III with one hundred and six killings and Terminator 2 which showed countless killings lus a nuclear holocaust have at one time had their own line of children’s action figures even though both movies are rated R. One must seriously consider the idea that the movie studios are targeting a younger and easily influenced main audience. The ancient Greeks believed that violence should never be shown on stage, because people imitated what they saw.

Because of this they would only show the results of violence in order to deter any violent activity. The Greeks slowly but surely moved away from this idea as did other playwrights, and by the late 1500’s a new writer with a new view on violence was beginning to write plays. His name was William Shakespeare. Many critics were bothered by Shakespeare’s failure to follow the rules of the ancient Greeks, especially the rules concerning violence, but they also objected to Shakespeare’s comic sexual passages, which they considered vulgar.

Shakespeare was a writer during what has historically been called the Elizabethan era. Shakespeare’s plays reflect the shift from optimism to pessimism in Elizabethan society. “Elizabethans were keenly aware of death and the brevity of life” (Info Find), but death and violence fascinated the Elizabethans. “They flocked to the beheadings of traitors hose heads were exhibited on poles and watched as criminals were hanged, and they saw the rotting corpses dangle from the gallows for days” (The Student Handbook 2: 591). Elizabethans, literature and lives were very violent.

In Shakespeare’s play Hamlet all the main characters die through murder or suicide, all of which is shown on stage. Those critics who say excessive violence has only become a common occurence in today’s entertainment, should watch Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus with its’ stage direction, “Enter a messenger with two heads and a hand” (Klavan 98), or they should atch as quarts of stage blood are poured all over the “victims” in that same play. Novels, just like television, movies, and plays can cause violence. Throughout history novels have been the cause of violent behavior.

Those who say people can’t be influenced by books, should really look into the influence that a book called Uncle Tom’s Cabin had ten years prior to the Civil War. In 1851 Uncle Tom’s Cabin, written by Harriet Beecher Stowe was published. The novel told of the hardships and cruelties faced by African-American slaves in the south. The novel popularlized the abolitionist movement and is believed to have been a major ause for the Civil War, which even though a noble cause, resulted in over 500,000 deaths (The Student Handbook 2: 592). In 1980 Mark Chapman, a former mental patient, shot and killed John Lennon.

When asked why he did it, he indicated that he got the idea to kill Lennon from J. D. Salinger’s novel The Catcher in the Rye (590). He felt that he and the main character in the story, Holden Caufield, were very similar because they were both angry social outcasts, who were recovering from a mental breakdown (590). Violence is prominent in children’s novels too. R. L. Stine’s novel The Babysitter III, tells of decapitating a baby and in Christopher Pike’s novel, Monster, there is a graphic description of the effects of a shotgun being fired at a person’s head at close range.

Roderick McGillis, a professor of English at the University of Calgary and author of a book on children’s literature, has written that, “What disturbs me is that we’re developing in our culture, in our cities, a kind of siege mentality. A lot of thes books reinforce this, make it sort of normal to think that the world is a place in which violence can erupt at any moment” (Gray 54). With all of this evidence t is hard to ignore the fact that violence in entertainment can cause violence in society. This paper has now shown that there are copycat kilers who get the idea for their crimes from entertainment.

It has also been shown that the more violent movies and television children watch the more likely thay are to become aggressive and violent. Violence in entertainment and society is not isolated to the present, it was also very prominent in the writings of Shakespeare. With the evidence showing that violence in entertainment causes real life violence, it is very hard to say that violence in entertainment is justifiable. When little children and adults alike, fall victim to entertainment’s violent influence it is not justifiable and it is especially not justifiable when violent entertainment creates real life victims.

Is censorship the answer to the problem of violent entertainment? Should we tell people what they can or can’t read or watch? The simple answer to this question is no, we can’t censor violent entertainment. The First Amendment clearly states that: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the ress, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The instinct to censor is the tragic flaw of utopian minds. “Our first job,” said Plato in his classic attack on the democratic system , “is to oversee the work of the story writers, and to accept any good stories they write, but reject the others” (Klavan 96). If the government ever did censor violent entertainment who knows where they would stop, or even if they would. Perhaps they would try to censor violent speech or try to censor the speech of those who disagreed ith the actions of the government.

The simple message is don’t promote censorship, because it could easily get out of hand, and as the old saying goes “the road to hell is paved with good intentions. ” There are then only two ways to get rid of the violent entertainment in our lives: we could shame those who make the violent movies, television shows, books, and plays, into having a social conscience, making them be less prone to creating violent entertainment; or we could simply solve the problem ourselves, with a push of a button, or the turn of a page.

Animal Cruelty leads to Human Violence

Animal cruelty encompasses a range of different behaviors harmful to animals, from neglect to malicious, brutal killings. Studies show that animal cruelty may lead to more serious forms of crime, like heavy drug use, violent outbursts, and most common, cold blooded murder. Many studies in psychology, sociology, and criminology during the last twenty-five years have demonstrated that violent offenders frequently have childhood and adolescent histories of serious and repeated animal cruelty.

A web page that goes by the name Animal Alliance says most cruelty investigated by humane officers, is nintentional neglect, and can be resolved through education. (3) I was slightly shocked when I saw this comment. Anyone who puts an animals life in their hands, has a responsibility to it. You dont just forget to feed him/her, or forget to show them love unless it is intentional, it get so much worse, though.

These people arent just forgetting to feed their pets, or give them attention, theyre kicking and beating them, poisoning and butchering these poor creatures, and what makes me sick to my stomach, is that some of these people do it for fun!! I recently ran across a link to a web page that contained a online petition to put a cats killers to justice with maximum sentence. This is the article I found on this brutal torture of an innocent creature. ***WARNING*** (graphic details) On October 10, 1999, a beautiful female cat came willingly to the four boys who stopped on the side of the road and called to her.

Her trust was rewarded by unthinkable terror and cruelty – being used as a tug-of-war toy until the boys heard something “pop”, having her legs broken, being jumped up and down on like a trampoline. Even when her itiful battered body was mercifully dead, her suffering was not at an end. The boys then placed her ravaged body under the wheel of their car, braking over her, as they drove off to find other amusement. Once the Chesapeake Animal Control conducted their investigation and performed a necropsy, criminal charges were filed against 3 of the 4 boys involved.

If these charges are found to be accurate, these boys are not only in violation of the laws of the State of Virginia, but are also in need of immediate psychiatric intervention. (1)*** Another horrific article I ran across was even worse. It was about a dog who to was also a victim of rancid brutality. Here is that story. ***WARNING*** (graphic details) Jose, Marcus, Richard and Lance are accused of obtaining a video camera, pressing the ‘record’ button, luring Scruffy from his home, and then torturing and killing him in an unspeakably monstrous act of cruelty.

In the videotape that the police and media have in their possession, four men are shown torturing and killing Scruffy in lurid detail. The quality of the tape is very good, and the police have been able to obtain photographs of the men in the tape. In this tape, one of the four men is shown to elevate Scruffy off the ground by the neck, and then begin this horrific abuse by choking him. This 6 pound little dog did not have a fighting chance against these men. Scruffy, still alive, was then placed in a trash bag.

The four men shown in the tape then doused the trash bag with what appeared in the video to be lamp oil, took a cigarette lighter, and set Scruffy on fire. Scruffy, at this point in the video, began to run wildly in pain and agony around the trees while the four men watched and laughed. When the flames finally went out, Scruffy was still alive, but his torture was not over. Next, the men decided to try to decapitate Scruffy with a shovel. After slamming the shovel into Scruffy’s neck and not being able to attain their goal, they realized that Scruffy was more of a fighter than they had expected.

The men then opened Scruffy’s mouth and began to pull his jaws apart, as if trying to rip his face in two. Using the shovel in place of a club, the men then beat Scruffy until his tiny body gave out, and he died. Throughout the videotape the four men are all shown aughing and having a good time as they are carrying out these unspeakable tortures. (1) *** After I read these stories I was disgusted, revolted, down right sickened by the realization that these men needed to be institutionalized or locked down.

Its scares me to think of what they would and are capable of doing to a human being. The FBI uses reports of animal cruelty in analyzing the threat potential of suspected and known violent criminals. Dr. Randall Lockwood, vice president of Training Initiatives for The Humane Society of the United States, states that Researchers, as well as the FBI and other law enforcement agencies nationwide, have linked animal cruelty to domestic violence, child abuse, serial killings, and to the recent rash of killings by school-age children. 2) I found yet another web page listing some reports from police case files. I was astonished! These are a few excerpts from that page.

“Russell Weston Jr. , tortured and killed 12 cats, by burning, cutting their tails, paws, ears off, put toxic chemicals in their eyes, blinding them, forcing them to eat poison, hanging hem from trees; the noose loose enough to create a slow and painful death, as the cat/kitten struggles to free itself as the noose gets tighter with each attempt.

Later killed 2 officers at our Nation’s Capitol. ” “Jeffery Dahmer loved to dissect animals (he learned this in school). Later he dissected boys, and kept their body parts in the refrigerator. Murdered 17 men. ” “On May 21, 1998 in Springfield, Oregon; 15-year-old Kip Kinkel set a live cat on fire and dragged the innocent creature through the main street of town. He walked into his high school cafeteria and opened fire on his classmates. Two classmates were killed and 22 others injured, four critically.

Later that day, police found his parents shot to death in their home. ” “Prior to committing multiple murders, Luke Woodham, age 16, wrote in his personal journal that he and an accomplice beat, burned and tortured his dog, Sparkle, to death. Woodham said it was “true beauty. ” He poured liquid fuel down his dog’s throat and set fire to her neck, both inside and outside. On 10/1/1977, Woodham stabbed his mother to death and then went to his high school where he shot and killed two classmates — two irls aged 16 and 17, and injured seven others.

In June 1998, Woodham was found guilty of three murders and seven counts of aggravated assault. He was sentenced to three life sentences and an additional 20 years for each assault. ” “The Kobe Killer, an as yet unnamed 15-year-old boy in Japan, beheaded a cat and strangled several pigeons. Decapitated 11-year-old Jun Hase, and battered to death a 10-year-old girl with a hammer, and assaulted three other children in separate attacks. ” “At 9 years old, Eric Smith strangled a neighbor’s cat. At 13 years old, he bludgeoned our-year-old Derrick Robie to death.

Smith lured the little boy into the woods, choked him, sodomized him with a stick, then beat him to death with a rock. ” “Arthur Shawcross repeatedly threw a kitten into a lake until the kitten drowned from exhaustion. Killed a young girl. Then, after serving 15-1/2 years in prison, he killed 11 more women. ” (4) *** Dr. Randall Lockwood stated, Violence directed at animals by young people is a sign that something is terribly wrong, and often acts as a warning of future violence, even killings directed against humans. 2) In the in the past 18 months, we have seen seven school shootings.

In each one, it was learned that the perpetrators had abuse, tortured, and killed animals before moving on to their human victims and our nation is wondering what happened. One of the most dangerous things that can happen to a child is to kill or torture an animal and get away with it. Our child must be taught young that it wrong to poke at puppys eyes. We cant afford to ignore what we think of as childish exploration. Our children learn the most important aspects of life young and if theyre not aware of what is ight and wrong, it could possibly lead to more dangerous attempts.

As a society, we can not tolerate cruelty towards animals. People inclined to inflict pain and torture upon animals have a predisposition to violence against both animals and humans. A 1997 study by the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (MSPCA) reports that youngsters convicted of animal abuse are five times more likely to commit violence against other humans than are their peers, four times more likely to be involved in acts against property, and three times more likely to be drug offenders.

Media Violence is No Problem

Violent movies and television shows have been popular since the mediums were invented. Westerns and Police shows have kept us inundated with gun play and car chases. However many feel that entertainment companies have gone too far. Politicians, like Al Gore and Bill Clinton, have officially asked the producers and television stations to tone down the violence in their products and try to have more family orientated messages. Why the sudden change in heart? The recent rash of schoolshooting and teen violence has made many Americans look for a reason; the reason they have found is the media.

The entertainment industry is not a willing scapegoat. They have given some ground but refuse to give anymore. At the forefront of the battle are directors like Wes Craven who’s violent scary movies, the Scream trilogy and Vampire, are squarely blamed for the rise in violent teens. On television shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer and especially professional wrestling are being forced to calm down the violence they show and have been pushed back to later hours so that younger children can’t watch (Clinton 3).

While the Media industry have bent, the body count in Scream 3 was lowered and wrestling has promised to depict women more appropriately and tone down their violent bouts, they refuse to break which is what many parents are calling for. According to some According to the American Psychological Association, the average American child views 8,000 murders and 100,000 other acts of violence before finishing elementary school (Anonymous 1). That is a lot of violence for a young adult, but the question is not whether they see it but whether it drives them to be violent also.

There are, however, no conclusive studies on the effects of violence in the media on children. Still the shear number of violent acts is bothersome and should be controlled. “There is still too much violence on our nation’s screens, large and small,” Said Bill Clinton at a benefit in California after one of the shootings (Clinton 1). He also urged for the rating system to be reevaluated and parents to watch programs along with their children. While many have clamored for a change nothing has been done.

No effective bills have been passed and no groups have stepped forward to take on the media. There are many possible reasons for this. One of the major reasons is that the entertainment industry is large and very influential. Many politicians fear taking on such a large foe for fear of ending their career. Another reason is that it would be unconstitutional. Lynne Cheney remarked, “They know you can’t enact legislation,” she said on CBS’ “Face the Nation. ” “This is wallpaper, a spin … to make people think they are on the side of parents. ” (Cheney 1).

Any legislation against the industry would be in violation of free speech and would never stand in the Supreme Court. Another possible reason for the lack of litigation is that it probably wouldn’t work. There may be an abundance of numbers documenting the amount of violence children see but no one can tell whether it effects them or not. While cases of children imitating wresting moves have been documented, this doesn’t show that they intended to hurt the other person. They are also the minority rather than the majority. Most people simply watch the shows and take them for entertainment.

Another flaw in the argument to ban media violence is that none of the school shootings have been blamed on the media. None of them has claimed it influenced them or that they had done it because they saw it on television. In fact there has never been a case where the defense that a movie or television show caused the crime. While many try to over look these facts the fact remains that until a connection is definitely made between media violence and real life violence many including myself will remain against the censorship of entertainment.

Violence in Sports

Steeler running back Rocky Bleier, whose war time experiences, not so oddly, offer some insights. To Bleier, there are interesting parallels between survival in war and survival in the NFL. The experiences with war injuries and football injuries are quite the same, he said. (Casay) The injuries that are accumulated during sports are rapidly increasing to the point that there are injured players on every team in each game that is played. This is especially true in the most physical professional sports, i. e. NFL and the NHL. Most of these injuries are directly related to the increasing violent nature of pro athletes.

The cost of the aggression — the punishment — has to be greater than the benefits, said Dr. Brenda Bredemeier, sports psychology consultant at the University of California-Berkley. The latest outbreak of violence occurred in Bredemeier’s back yard, Oakland, where (Latrell) Sprewell attacked Coach P. J. Carlesimo during practice and, according to published reports, threatened to kill him if he wasn’t traded. Detroit Press) Pro athletes are committing criminal acts and the law for the most part is letting them get away with crimes. Another case of violence by a pro athlete happened recently.

Ray Lewis was initially charged with murder along with two of his friends for an altercation that happened in Atlanta after the Superbowl on January 31, 2000. The three men got into a fight with two other men and killed them. Lewis pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice and Superior Court Judge Alice D. Bonner sentenced Lewis to 12 months’ probation, the maximum sentence for a first-time offender. (CNNSI) This case made me think to myself, Would a man facing murder charges with two of his friends be able to walk a free man with no jail time at all and still be accepted by society?

Pro athletes receive star status by the public and the media, encouraging law enforcement officials to look the other way whenever they break the law. Our judicial system in turn hands out less severe penalties for criminal offences committed by pro athletes than the average criminal offender. Violence in professional sports is seen in the actions of one player against another, but is now rapidly increasing outside of the games to where the players are now being deemed as criminals as well as athletes and tarnishes their image as role models to kids.

Athletes in pro sports are paid outrageous amounts to play, which gives them more incentive to be violent. Some argue that the athletes deserve these wages. These enormous amounts of money that pro athletes are making are ridiculous. The average earned income in major league baseball is over $800,000 a season(Fizel, 83), and some of these players just sit the bench all year. These high salaries are beneficial in making the athletes more violent. How is it fair that a man that can hit a ball four hundred feet to send a baseball out of the park make $30 million a season?

Barry Bonds is truly a great athlete, but to be paid that much he should be able to hit home runs with his eyes closed. Michael Jordan is the greatest man to ever walk across the hard wood floors of professional basketball, but to be paid $63 million in one season is almost sickening. Football players arent any better but are a little different when it comes to why they are paid so much. They have a lot more at stake when they go out on to the field to do battle.

They have to consider the possibility of getting injured at any time because of the violent nature of the sport. They are paid to be big, mean, fast, and ruthless out on the field against men just as big and ruthless as themselves. Kevin Green, a defensive linebacker said It is true that we are getting paid outrageous amount for what we do out on the turf, but we are the most likely to get hurt in all professional sports. We want to make sure we get what we need before we get out of the league. OHara, 12) That is the typical mindset of pro football players.

The signification of the relation between violence in pro sports and the money the athletes make is summed up in this quote: The economic incentive to win forces players to develop a win at all cost attitude. Players no longer play simply for the love of the game, but rather play for the tremendous amount of wealth that can be attained by winning. (Rowe) The fans of professional sports are expecting more from the players, and when they feel that the performance from their team is inadequate, they get violent. Most people know of the incidents that occur from European and South American soccer games.

The fans of these soccer games have fights regularly over arguments that are provoked from one team winning and one team losing. There have also been cases as extreme as death for another fan or even a player. on May 29, 1985 when two fans turned an argument into a full scale riot, as the Italian fans tried to storm the English stands in the process they knocked down a cement wall killing 39 people. In result of this some teams had to ban their own fans from attending the home games. (Hazleton) Violent fans happen in any sport, not just soccer.

The National Hockey League (NHL) had an unfortunate event in the early 1990s. Take for example, the Montreal Canadians, who had just won the National Hockey League championship after their June 7 Stanley Cup final victory over the Los Angles Kings. Almost immediately after the game, a rampage started in the streets of Montreal. For over two hours, people were turning over cars, setting fires, and smashing store windows with big stones. The damage was estimated at about $10 million. (McGurgan) Drinking is an activity that provokes the fans to act in a violent nature.

There is a new crackdown on drinking at Wrigley Field, the home of the Chicago Cubs. They have beefed up security to keep people in the cheap seats from moving into the lower box seats. Season-ticket holders will be responsible for the actions of anyone using their seats. But the biggest changes are in beer sales. The Cubs will reduce the number of beer vendors by 10 percent; make them stop selling in the middle of the sixth inning, a half-inning earlier than before; and allow vendors to stock up only halfway for their final trip through the stands.

It is all, as the letter says, because the poor decision of one fan resulted in an event that was embarrassing for all of us. “(Chicago Times) The incident that the reporter was talking about was that of a Chicago Cub fan that took the hat from Chad Kreuter, when his Los Angeles Dodgers were playing against the Cubs. Ron Camacho, one of three men arrested for disorderly conduct during last week’s fight at the Cubs-Dodgers game, has filed a lawsuit against both teams seeking more than $400,000.

Chad Kreuter and other Dodgers jumped into the seats and “strangled, punched, slapped, pushed and kicked Mr. Camacho,” the suit says, injuring his neck, arms, torso and face and causing him severe pain and suffering and emotional distress. (Chicago Times) This event may or may not have been prevented by the selling of alcoholic beverages, but it does portray the violent nature of the pro athletes and the fans of pro sports. These crazed fans need to stop their violent nature before more people are injured and killed.

Society has a lasting effect on how professional sports should be played, and the general attitude is the acceptance of violence because the pro sports generate too much money to do without it. Violence and pro sports have coexisted for a long time. Violence occurs by the athletes while they are playing their sport and off the field as well. One such incident on the field occurred in the NFL in 1977. The Cincinnati Bengals were playing the Denver Broncos, and a player from Denver struck a player from Cincinnati in the back of the neck.

Mr. Hackbart later felt great pain and, after seeing a doctor, learned that he had a serious neck fracture. In Hackbart vs. Cincinnati, the trial court ruled that intentional injuries incurred during a game should be outside the framework of the law. (Rowe) With the increase in society taking a stand against violence, pro sports have become an area where some feel that the violent acts such as the hitting and fighting that occurs should be eliminated.

Most people in our society, however, believe that you cannot change something that has been around for so long because it would change the aspect of the game to something completely different. The reasons that the violence is occurring in sports are due to six theories according to John Schneider. “The violence in sport mirrors the violence found in society, violence as the result of economic incentives, the influence of crowd behavior on player violence, genetic causation for player aggression, learning theory and player aggression, and psychological stress and player violence” (Lapchick 230).

The theories of sport mirroring society, violence as a result of economic incentive, and the influence of the crowd behavior are the theories that I feel are responsible for the increasing violence in sports. In events such as hockey games, where people are expected to hit and make body contact, sooner or later a fight will break out and the fans will yell and scream for their favorite player involved. If people around us are applauding us for a certain act we have done, we will try to do it over so that we will continue to be praised.

In sports, there are some players whose only role on the team is to protect and enforce the unwritten rules of the game such as in hockey where it is not right to fight or hit a Wayne Gretzky type of star player. His economic incentive is to protect the team and if he does not, a new line of work might be in the future. All three of those theories relate closely to the role of the fighter in sport and why it is that he does commit the acts of violence. When the NFL or the NHL are asked to try and remove the violence from their sport, they are hesitant because it is not what the fans want.

Bryant and Zillman report that television viewers enjoy NFL plays more when they are rough and violent” (McPherson 294). We tolerate it and we bring it under disciplinary control, which we believe satisfies the public (Snyder 201). A part of society that should hold a lot of the blame for this acceptance of violence in pro sports is the media. Whenever Sportscenter comes on ESPN it always glorifies an act of violence such as the “hit of the night” or repeats of some type of fight whether it be in hockey, boxing or a bench-clearing brawl in baseball.

When you can only fit approximately “17,000 people” into a Las Vegas boxing arena, the money is not made at the gate (Lunney 39). The general consensus is that sports violence is reflective to the violence that happens in our society. Professional athletes have a tremendous amount of determination and competitiveness about them that is rarely seen anywhere else, but they are becoming less and less of role models because of their violent nature while they are playing their sport and the crimes that are being committed away from the sport.

The high salaries, involvement of fans, and society are three theories as to why athletes are prone to act in such a violent way. The high salaries that athletes make is what drives them to violently play their sport, because they are rewarded most of the time for this style of play. The fans of professional sports cheer on their teams, especially when they see a player or players get injured from the opponents team. Society has come to accept the fact that violence in pro sports will never decease because of the revenue that is involved in the games.

These facts are all sad but true, and the people in our society that are going to suffer the most from the violence are the kids. Since most pro athletes are deemed as role models, kids who see them on TV are going to think that there actions are okay to follow by, regardless if it is a basketball player throwing a punch or a baseball player charging the pitcher. Pro athletes, fans, and society need to all evaluate themselves and try to make a change for the better that decreases the violence.

The Social Agency Oasis mission

The Social Agency Oasis mission is to provide services to battered women and their children. They feel everyone has th right to a life free from violence. Oasis does not necessarily try to end these abusive relationships they encounter, just the violence. They believe in self determination and support their clients in any decision they make. Oasis only wants what is best for everyone involved. They are the leading womens advocate for this area. Eligibility requirements for Oasis, firstly the women must be in a dangerous situation at home. She is a victim of abuse or sexual abuse.

She does not have anywhere else to go and cannot leave on her own. She is not aloud to give the location of the shelter to anyone, that would put the whole house at risk. She has to come out and meet the volunteers at the courthouse, the police station or the hospital because they have security. Security is important incase a dangerous situaton arises. She also cannot be on any type of substance, alcohol or drugs. Terry Julian, Oasis,( personal communication, March 15, 2000). Oasis provides for their clients a 24-hour crisis line for family violence and sexual assault.

Shelter for abused women and their children. They provide only short term counseling for their clients. Oasis can refer the women to phsycologists but, they do not have recoveery counseling. They provide advocacy and companionship for victims needing assistance through medical examinations, law enforcement and court procedures. They provide information and referals and also educational programs to schools and the community. Oasis is a short-term assistance program only. If a woman and child were to come to them with only the clothes on their back? then Oasis would provide them with the basics.

The shelter will feed them, clothe them and provide temporary housing. Oasis also has transition housing to help get these ladies back on their feet. Support groups are sometimes avaliable but, that depends on whether there are women around who need to come to the meetings. There is no charge for any service Oasis provides but, they are not able to give cash either. Oasis could only give someone money if they just needed to have alittle to get somewhere close, such as Charlotte. Terry Julian, Oasis (personal communication March 15,2000).

Oasis operates on Federal and State grants, private donations and help from United Way. Oasis runs with a board of fifteen people and six are full time employees. There is an executive director who is the grant writer, then there is the director of client services and her assistant. The latter two work with the clients at the shelter. Then there is the community educator and the volunteer coordinator . Volunteers play a big part in Oasis operations and they receive 20 hours of training from the community educator before becoming active.

Volunteers can work the crisis line, work at the shelter or become an advocate. Terry Julian, Oasis (personal communication March 15,2000). During 1999 Oasis had seventeen women and twenty-eight children stay at the shelter. They had ninety-five non-shelter domestic violence cases, eighteen non-shelter sexual assalt cases and three-hundred seventy-five crisis calls. Domestic violence occurs with all ethnic and cultural backgrounds but, Boone and Watauga, Alleghany and Ashe counties do not correctly represent the American Population.

Because this area is predominatly made up of middle to lower class caucasian Southern Baptists, these are the women they see. Terry Julian, Oasis (personal communication March 15,2000). Despite the wonderful services Oasis provides, they have a few shortcomings. The biggest one is that the shelter is only temporary, just to get women out of immediate danger. But on the up side they do have transitional housing for the women and their children to get into and get back on their feet. Another downfall is that they do not have any trained counselors.

Since they are a non-profit organization they more then likely would not be able to get a professional to work for free. One might be willing to give them some time but, they could not afford to give all their time and knowledge. The last problem the shelter has but, is not their fault is that women leave their partners on an average of seven times before they leave for good. Which must make it very frustrating for these volunteers to have to watch these women keep going back to an unhealthy, painful life.

Violence on Television and the V-chip

Television programs that generate a great deal of concern among parent and educators are those that contain violence. The questionable violence, sex and language on television have caused the nation to find methods of censoring these problems. Due to television violence, censorship should reduce the ability for children to view violent content. Children have an easy access to violence on television from violent programs through movie channels. The publics concern has been reflected in congressional hearings and massive studies on the effect of TV violence, especially on children.

Dr. James C. Dobson from the Focus on the Family Newsletter says: If you have any doubt about the influence MTV wishes to exert on todays adolescents, watch their popular program Beavis and ButtheadThey use crude words, fondle themselves, do horribly cruel things to animals, and sit around watching heavy-metal videos as bright green stuff runs from their nosesBeavis and Butthead took a trip to a rifle range where they accidentally shot down a plane. They had difficulty opening the door of the wrecked plane, so they left women and children to die inside.

This is the fare served up to preteens and adolescents by the company that seek to shape an entire generation (Hendershot 13) In 1994 a small child burned down his trailer house, killing his baby sister. His mother responded to the accident by saying that he learned to do so by watching Beavis and Butthead. Instead of legal issues, MTV responded by moving the program to a later time. (Hendershot 14) There are many reasons to be concerned about violence. Television violence is more frequent then real violence. Television violence spares the views the suffering of the victim and the disorder of the killer.

By the time a child is the age of 18, they will see 115,000 violent acts on television. (Hefzallah 88) An eleven-year-old child reported, I was scared when I saw Friday the 13th. Whenever the girl went into the water and Jason stuck a knife in her and all this blood was in the water-I got real scared. (Abelman 28) Robert Singer voiced: Working-class children, minority children, unpopular children and children doing poorly in school seem to be the ones more susceptible to imitating the aggression that they see on television.

This may be partly because they watch more hours and are exposed to more television violenceTelevision may or may not contribute to their aggressive behavior, but their aggressive nature does play a major role in what they choose to watch. (Hefzallah 87) Action for Childrens Television (ACT tried to make childrens television better; it was often accused of making it worse. Peggy Charren, cofounder of the ACT says: People criticize ACT for lack of creativity today. We never asked for that. They dont remember what it was like before we were around. There was no Sesame Street or Electric Company.

It was never our idea to sanitize the superheroes and reduce the art of animation to its present standards. The broadcasters are responsible for whats on the air today, not Action for Childrens Television. Were trying to see that the product is improved, not worsened. (Hendershot 61) A way to help with the problem of violence on television is censorship. In the United States the design and development of program rating systems plan to be used in connection with supposed v-chip technologies. (Price 23) In February 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which included the v-chip.

The v-chip allows parents to shield out shows that have been rated for violence and objectionable content (cnn. com. ) The legislation requires insertion of the v-chip in new television sets allowing parent to have some control of what their child watches. The v-chip provision requires television broadcaster and cable companies to voluntarily develop a rating system on violence, sex and obscenity. The law requires that if networks establish ratings, they must transmit these ratings so they may be recognized by the v-chip. There are a variety of myths that come with the v-chip.

Some believe that the v-chip is censorship and violates the First Amendment. In fact the v-chip is not in violation of the First Amendment. The parents decide what to block, not the government. Others believe that it will be expensive to add v-chips to their television. But in fact it will only cost less than $5 to add the v-chip. Correspondingly the Decoder Circuitry Act of 1990 already requires every new to have closed-captioning electronics. The v-chip basically involves adding the ability to read program ratings to the existing ability to read closed-captioning.

President Bill Clinton looks on the v-chip as giving the remote control back to the parent. In an article written for Business Wire and also in a speech on the floor of the Senate, Senator Paul Simon argues that the v-chip would not be used in areas of high crime. He also points out that teenagers will find a way around the v-chip. Donald Wildmon president of the American Family Association said the v-chip sounds like a good step on the surface, but in the long run would absolve the entertainment industry of their responsibly. (cnn. com)

There are still questions that need to be answered about the chip. Such as if the program is turned on in the middle of the program, will the rating be read by the chip and the program blocked? Would each episode of the show be rated or would shows be given just one rating, regardless of content from week to week? These questions are still to be answered. Though the v-chip will not eliminate all violence, it will help reduce the amount that a child can view. No matter what, parents will still be responsible for what their children watch.

Media Violence Essay

American children and adolescents are being exposed to increasing amounts of media violence, especially in television, movies, video games, and youth-oriented music. By age 18, the average young person will have viewed an estimated 200 000 acts of violence on television alone. [1] Video game violence, children’s cartoons, and music lyrics have become increasingly graphic. In movies, action films depict anatomically precise murders, rapes, and assaults; with each sequel, the number of deaths increase dramatically. ] Although media violence is not the only cause of violence in American society, it is the single most easily remediable contributing factor. [3]

According to recent Nielsen data, the average American child views 21 to 23 hours of television per week. [4] By the time today’s children reach age 70, they will have spent 7 to 10 years of their lives watching television. [5] Although movies and video games are more graphic in depictions of violence, television is the single most important medium in the lives of young people (98% of all American households have at least one television set). ]

Despite public concern about television violence, the amount of television violence has not changed appreciably in the past two decades: the level of prime-time violence has remained at three to five violent acts per hour, and violence in Saturday morning children’s programming ranges between 20 to 25 violent acts per hour. [6-8] American media are the most violent in the world, and American society is now paying a high price in terms of real-life violence. [9,10]

Some people in the entertainment industry maintain that: 1) violent programming is harmless because no studies exist that prove a connection between violence in the media and aggressive behavior in children and 2) young people know that television, movies, and video games are simply fantasy. [11] Unfortunately, they are wrong on both counts. Over 1000 studies–including a Surgeon General’s special report in 1972[12] and a National Institute of Mental Health report 10 years later[13]–attest to a causal connection between media violence and aggressive behavior in some children.

Studies show that the more “real-life” the violence portrayed, the greater the likelihood that it will be “learned. “[16,17] Likewise, the portrayal of violence as being justified (particularly by the “good guy”) is the single most prevalent notion in American media and the most powerfully reinforcing one. [9,18] At young ages (before age 8), children cannot uniformly discriminate between “real life” and “fantasy/entertainment. ” [14,16,19] They quickly learn that violence is an acceptable solution to resolving even complex problems, particularly if the aggressor is the hero.

The only country in the world with nearly as much entertainment violence as the United States is Japan. Yet Japanese society is far less violent than American society. If media violence contributes to real-life violence, why isn’t Japanese society more affected? A 1981 study[20] found that the nature of the portrayal of violence is different in Japan: the violence is more realistic and there is a greater emphasis on physical suffering (ie, the consequences of violence are emphasized).

Interestingly, in Japan the “bad guys” commit most of the violence, with the “good guys” suffering the consequences–the exact opposite of American programming. In this context, violence is seen as wrong, a villainous activity with real and painful consequences, rather than as justifiable. [10] Media violence may: 1) facilitate aggressive and antisocial behavior; 2) desensitize viewers to future violence; and 3) increase viewers’ perceptions that they are living in a mean and dangerous world. ,21,22] Although less is known about video games and their effects, the media violence literature provides grounds for concern. [23]

Media studies range from content analyses (monitoring the amount of violence contained in programming), to naturalistic studies (studying children as television is introduced into their culture), to longitudinal correlational studies (following a population of children for years and sometimes decades). [14,24] As one leading researcher noted recently, the controversy is over. 5] The vast majority of studies conclude that there is a cause-and-effect relationship between media violence and real-life violence.

This link is undeniable and uncontestable. Even if the overwhelming scientific evidence did not exist, there would still be ample reason to oppose violent programming based on common sense, philosophical, humanistic, or aesthetic grounds. [26] American media have also succeeded in glamorizing guns in a way that endangers the public health of youngsters and adults.

At a time when guns rank as one of the leading causes of death among children and adolescents,[27] gun-play and references to guns are still rife on prime-time television, in the movies, in video games, and in music lyrics. The United States is the most heavily armed nation on earth. [28] Any programming that makes these instruments of killing more attractive, glamorous, or desirable is dangerous, unhealthy, and unethical.

The Analyzation of Violence on Screen

In the last few years, I have noticed that on screen violence has become as common as a Cheesesteak in Philadelphia. People often argue that the violence seen on screen is influencing our culture, yet each year the amount of viewers’ increase. It seems that in order for your film or program to be successful it must contain violence. In my opinion, this constant levitation of violence on screen is due to our cultures’ infatuation with the art of violence.

Violence is present in the most of our cultures most enjoyedfilms like Independence Day, daytime talk shows such as Jerry Springer and even in cartoons that have been around forever like Tom & Jerry. I can recall a time when daytime talk shows (Donahue, Oprah) would hardly ever have audience feed back and very few panelists. My how times have changed. On today’s talk shows, such as Jerry Springer, there is always a boisterous audience member, or an insane guest. Just as sure as you will find Abe Lincoln on a penny, you will see a chair fly on Jerry Springer.

The Springer show was the first show to have guests’ fight without stopping the camera. Jerry Springers’ blatant disrespect for daytime show rules stirred controversy in the media but it also stirred up something in the public. interest. Although Jerry Springer had gone against all the rules of daytime, his rebellion had made his talk show the most watched show in the nation. When the Springer show surpassed the ratings of all time favorite Oprah Whinfrey, it was re-established that violence sells.

Recently the Springer show has stopped airing its’ fierce and very real fights for many reasons, one being that 23% of the people that watched his show are under the age of sixteen. Although Jerry Springer is a show intended for adults, childrens’ shows contain violence as well. When I was a child, I saw nothing wrong with the Elmer Fudd hunting Rabbits or other Looney Tune characters being blown up, shot, or thrown off a cliff. Wile E. Cyote was always being killed while scheming to catch the Road Runner. The most popular cartoons always contained violence.

Though not the most violent, Tom & Jerry exhibited the cat and mouse chase with a little extra. There have been countless times I have been glued to the TV as Tom was beaten up, cut up, or strangled by the witty mouse Jerry. It did not even strike me as violence, but it was. I watched Tom & Jerry a few days ago, I realized that the whole show was based on Tom and Jerry trying to kill each other. Tom trying to kill Jerry to eat him or keep his master and mistress happy and Jerry trying to kill Tom to save his life.

There weren’t a lot of weapons used in Tom & Jerry except for a few explosives here and there but never any guns like in many big screen movies. Everyone loves to go to the movie theatre with their over priced snacks and sticky floors, but what makes movies sell? The films that make the most money at the box offices are usually action films that have many fist fights, explosives and big guns. Independence Day grossed more at the box offices than any other film in history. The movies plot was typical. A group of fearless humans attempts to save the earth from vicious extraterrestrial.

Will Smith fist fought aliens, blew up planets and clobbered all the bad guys. The movie was consisted of a visual feast of explosives, property damages, and incredible sound effects. Independence Day was to Sci-Fi what Twister was to disaster films. Although Independence Day contained a massive amount of violence almost every person in America went to see it, and loved it. Just because our culture loves violence on screen, it does not mean that we all have sick and tormented minds, we are not all just killers waiting to happen.

Our culture is obsessed with real issues being dramatized . There is nothing wrong with having violence in films and on T. V. If a person wants to sit down and watch Will Smith blow up a planet and save the world, then they have that right. I personally enjoy watching action films with explosives, fistfights and death counts at nearly one hundred. I love the feeling of leaving the theatre in awe of what I just saw. Violence is apart of our culture both on and off the screen, only we can make light of a serious matter through the production of films, talk shows and cartoons.

Violence on the Tube

One Saturday morning many years ago, I was watching an episode of the Roadrunner’ on television. As Wile E. Coyote was pushed off of a cliff by the Roadrunner for the fourth or fifth time, I started laughing uncontrollably. I then watched a Bugs Bunny’ show and started laughing whenever I saw Elmer Fudd shoot Daffy Duck and his bill went twirling around his head. The next day, I pushed my brother off of a cliff and shot my dog to see if its head would twirl around. Obviously, that last sentence is not true.

Some people believe that violence on the tube is one of the main factors that leads to real-life violence, ut in my opinion, television is just a minor factor that leads to real-life violence and that it is the parents responsibility to teach kids the difference. According to Rathus in Psychology in the New Millennium, observational learning may account for most human learning (239). Observational learning extends to observing parents and peers, classroom learning, reading books, and learning from media such as television and films.

Nearly all of us have been exposed to television, videotapes, and films in the classroom. Children in day- care centers often watch Sesame Street. There are filmed and videotaped ersions of great works of literature such as Orson Welles’ Macbeth. Nearly every school shows films of laboratory experiments. But what of our viewing outside of the classroom? Television is also one of our major sources of informal observational learning. According to Sweet and Singh, viewing habits range from the child who watches no television at all to the child who is in front of the television nearly all waking hours.

They say that on average, children aged 2 to 11 watch about 23 hours of television per week, and teenagers watch about 22 hours per week (2). According to these igures, children spend less time in the classroom than they do watching television. During these hours of viewing, children are constantly being shown acts of violence. Why? Simple: violence sells. People are drawn to violence in films, television dramas, books, professional wrestling and boxing, and reports of crime and warfare. Does violence do more than sell, however?

Do media portrayals of violence beget violence in the streets and in the home? It seems clear enough that there are connections between violence in the media and real violence. In the 1990’s, for example, audiences at films about iolent urban youth such as Colors, Boyz N the Hood, and Juice have gotten into fights, shot one another, and gone on rampages after the showings. The MTV cartoon characters, Beavis and Butt-head, who comment on rock videos and burn and destroy things, may have been connected with the death of a 2-year-old and a burned room in Ohio.

The victims 5-year-old brother, who set the blaze that killed the 2-year-old, had begun playing with fire after he observed Beavis and Butt-head to say that fire is fun. A few more examples are shown on the picture to the left (Leland 47). Obviously, these are just a few isolated incidents. If everyone acted this way after watching violence then we would really have a problem. Children are routinely exposed to murders, beatings, and sexual assaults just by turning on the television set.

The public is wary of it, of course. Psychologists, educators, and parent groups have raised many questions about the effects of media violence. For example, does media violence cause real violence? If there are causal connections between media violence and real violence, what can parents and educators do to prevent the fictional from pilling over into the real world? Media violence affects children through observational learning, disinhibition, increasing arousal and priming aggressive thoughts, and desensitization.

The Mean World Syndrome, which suggests that children who watch a lot of violence on television may begin to believe that the world is as mean and dangerous in real life as it appears on television, and hence, they begin to view the world as a much more mean and dangerous place, is another way in which media violence affects children (Murray 9). Children learn from observing the behavior of their parents and other dults. Television violence supplies models of aggressive skills.

Acquisition of these skills, in turn, enhances children’s aggressive competencies. In fact, children are more likely to imitate what their parents do than heed what they say. If adults say they disapprove of aggression but smash furniture or slap each other when frustrated, children are likely to develop the notion that aggression is the way to handle frustration. Classic experiments have shown that children tend to imitate the aggressive behavior they see on television, whether the models are cartoons or real people.

In one uch experiment, a child watches a film where an adult beats up on a life-size doll. The child is then put in a room with the same doll and is observed. The child almost always beats up on the doll in the same ways as seen in the film. The expression of skills may be inhibited by punishment or by the expectation of punishment. Conversely, media violence may disinhibit the expression of aggressive impulses that would otherwise have been controlled, especially when media characters get away with violence or are rewarded for it. 3% of violent acts in programs went unpunished (Telecommunications: Clinton Backs Antiviolence Chip 536).

Media violence and aggressive video games increase viewers’ levels of arousal. In the vernacular, television works them up. We are more likely to engage in dominant forms of behavior, including aggressive behavior, under high levels of arousal. Media violence has cognitive effects that also prime aggressive ideas and memories. Media violence provides scripts , or ideas on how to behave in situations that seem to parallel those they have observed.

Desensitization suggests that children who watch a lot of violence on television may become less sensitive to violence in the real world around them, ess sensitive to the pain and suffering of others, and more willing to tolerate ever-increasing levels of violence in our society. We become used to, or habituated to, many stimuli that impinge on us repeatedly. Repeated exposure to television violence may therefore decrease viewers’ emotional response to real violence.

If children come to perceive violence as the norm, their own attitudes toward violence may become less condemnatory and they may place less value on constraining aggressive urges. The question repeatedly arises as to whether media violence should be curtailed in an effort to stem community violence. Because of constitutional guarantees of free expression, current restraints on media depictions of violence are voluntary. Films, perhaps, are more violent than they have ever been, but television stations now and then attempt to tone down the violence in shows intended for children.

Still, our children are going to be exposed to a great deal of media violence. If not in Saturday morning cartoon shows, then in evening dramas and in the news. Or they’ll hear about violence from friends, watch children get into fights, or read about violence in the newspapers. Even if all those ources of violence were somehow hidden from view, they would learn of violence in Hamlet, Macbeth, and even in the Bible. Thus, the notion of preventing children from being exposed to violent models is impractical. We might also want our children to learn some aggressive skills so that they can defend themselves against bullies and rapists.

What, then, should be done? First of all, consider whether we are overestimating the threat. Although media violence contributes to aggressive behavior, it does not automatically trigger aggressive behavior. Many other factors, including the quality of the home environment, are involved. A loving, comfortable home life is not likely to feed into aggressive tendencies. In conclusion, it is parents’ and educators’ responsibility to inform children that the violent behavior they observe in the media does not represent the behavior of most people.

Also, the apparently aggressive behaviors they watch are not real. They reflect camera tricks, special effects, and stunts. Another important thing to tell children is that most people resolve conflicts by nonviolent means. Since it is impossible to censor television because of first amendment rights and television is a small contributor to real-life iolence, parents should concert their efforts towards spending time with their children and actually watching a violent show with their children and discussing in depth what is being shown.

If children consider violence inappropriate, they will probably not act aggressively, even if they have acquired aggressive skills. For in the words of Andrew Greeley, Music, film, and television reflect behavior rather than cause it. (C2) If I had known all this years before, maybe my brother wouldn’t have a headache all the time and my dog’s head wouldn’t be facing the wrong way.

Domestic Violence Paper

Throughout history many women have been victims of domestic violence. Society considered men to be superior to women because men were always in power economically, legally, and religiously. This gave men the attitude that women were inferior to them. Men harm their wives by beating them physically and abusing them emotionally. Many of these women did not report the abuse that they got from their spouses and families because they thought that no one would believe them.

By becoming informed with the causes, effects, and treatments of domestic violence towards women in the United States, we can hen contain the damages that are done to women or at least get the message across to other women that there is help to overcome this tragic display of affection. Domestic violence is defined broadly as violent acts carried out by persons in a marital, sexual, parental, or care-giving role toward others in reciprocal roles. Spousal abuse may apply to couples engaged in a sexual relationship outside of marriage.

And child abuse may be penetrated by parents, siblings, step-parents, or live-in boyfriends or girlfriends of the abused childs parent (Rosen 3). Battered women are defined as women that have been Victora 2 physically or emotionally abused by their husbands or families. These women suffer from many different types of domestic violence but the cause is just one abuse. Abuse happens to many women but most of the time it is not reported to the police.

Abuse is an underreported crime, it is underreported for two reasons: a) it occurs in the privacy of ones home where there are typically no witnesses aside from family members to detect and report it and b) though violence is by no means restricted to the lower classes, middle- and upper class iolence is likely to go unreported to the police (Stets 3). Why it is not reported to the police could be the result of the emotions that are building up inside the victims head. These women feel apprehensive in reporting the abuse because they are scared of what the abuser will do to them.

They were afraid because if he found out that they called the police he might hurt them or their children even more than he already did. The lower class violence is usually reported because they deal with social services more often than the middle and upper classes do. They are more educated in knowing that public social control agencies can help them get through the abuse. The middle and upper classes do not usually report these acts of violence because they probably can afford a psychiatrists or a marriage counselor. Abusive behavior begins in cycles and not everyday occurrences.

This abusive cycle is called the battering cycle and it contains three phases. The first phase is the tension-building phase, the second phase is the explosion or acute 3 battering incident phase, and the third phase is the calm, loving phase. The first hase is when the woman notices the man building tension and becoming very edgy which causes minor violent episodes. Then the second phase begins when that tension builds up higher and the man explodes in anger or in a blind rage that revolves into a severe violent incident. And the third and final phase is when the man apologizes and tries to win the woman back by showering her with gifts.

The abuse that women obtain towards them can be experienced with various types of violence. Those types of violence can be anything from a minor push or shove to something major such as threatening with a weapon. In the past, spousal abuse has been treated as a fairly simple set of violent behaviors. The five most common types of domestic or spousal violence are: 1) when a woman is thrown against an object, 2) when she is hit with the mans open hand or fist, 3) when she is pushed or shaken roughly, 4) when she is hit with an object and the 5) and most deadly of all is when a woman is threatened with a weapon (Rhodes 32).

The causes of domestic violence towards women in the United States are many but the best known and lucid are the male gender attitudes of being number one. Men have the idea that women are worthless and inferior to them. This concept degenerates women to a lower class or form of life that can not allow men to see women as their equals. According to Violence Hits Home, Karen Rosen reported that men who abuse their spouses tend to have more 4 traditional gender-role orientation than do non-batterers. She also suggests those abusive men tend to be more controlling, dominating, and aggressive in order to get their needs met (85).

These men also believe that their abuse will help them to maintain power in their families. Rosen also found out that witnessing marital violence as a child was consistently related to abuse in adult relationships in other words Being a member of a violent family is how each generation learns to be violent ( 85 ). When a child is exposed to everyday acts of domestic violence then that child is brought up to believe that domestic violence is acceptable and can be done to their own spouses. Some men also abuse their wives in an act of jealousy, anger, and aggression or poor impulse control.

Men usually tend to abuse women more often when the women involved re not their wives. Batterers are more likely to be violent in non-family situations than men that are married and do not batter their wives. According to Sandra Stith, a researcher of the causes for domestic violence, Abusers were more likely than non-abusers to believe that wife-beating is not only justified but acceptable ( 86 ). This belief that violence is justified to maintain power may explain why men may choose not to control their anger and frustrations. In an abusive mans eyes violence is not only justified but also acceptable.

The Media and our Violent Society

As you read a newspaper or watch the news on T. V. , you probably have come to the conclusion that violence is becoming a real serious problem in the world were we live. The nation has witnessed many acts of violence through the past few years. Some prime examples would be: O. J. Simpson, who was accused of murdering Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson; Susan Smith, who was found guilty of killing her own children; Timothy McVeigh, guilty of the Oklahoma City bombing of a federal building; Jeffery Dahmer, who was killed in prison after he was sentenced for the murders of several men.

Violence is a very broad topic, although it is categorized into many small groups. There is domestic violence, juvenile violence, hate violence, terrorist violence, and violence displaced through various forms of mass media. Domestic violence is a form of violence that usually occurs between individuals that reside in the same living arrangement. Domestic violence is one of the leading forms of violence. If you have ever seen one episode of the T. V. show Cops , you would have witnessed at least a couple of domestic disputes that the police were called to respond to.

This domestic violence is usually a result of an argument about money, emotional problems, or drugs and alcohol abuse. Most of the domestic disputes that become violent are not reported because of the fear the victim has for the offender. A very publicized illustration of domestic violence is the double murder of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson. The accused murder was Nicole Brown Simpson’s husband, Orenthal James Simpson. I am from Towanda, which is a small rural town in Bradford County, Pennsylvania. The population of Towanda is roughly 2,200 people.

Being raise in a small rural town, I haven’t been a victim of any crime, but I have witnessed an increase in violence, especially domestic violence. A prime example of this would be an incident in April 1995 that occurred in Windham Township. This violent act was a double homicide. The victims of the crime were Regina Ann Clark and her 9-year-old son, Ausin Wade Hopper. The suspects in the incident are John Joseph Koehler and William E. Curley. Our local newspaper reported that, “Koehler was the teacher in a contract-killing lesson in Bradford County” (Corie).

The other disturbing fact was that Regina Clark, one of the victims, was the girlfriend of John Koehler. The trial for John Koehler is now in progress at the Bradford County Courthouse. “John J. Koehler, 35, Blackwood, N. J. is charged with criminal homicide, criminal conspiracy, aggravated assault, kidnapping, burglary, endangering the welfare of a child and possessing instruments of a crime” (Corie). “William E. Curley, 19, Rome, also charged in these killings, waived his right to a jury trial earlier this month.

At his trial before President Judge Jeffery Smith, Curley was found guilty of first and second degree murder and burglary” (Corie). “The body of Ms. Clark was found stuffed inside a refrigerator at a make-shift dump site along a rural road in Stevens Township. Two days later the small boy’s body was located in a sluice pipe under a road in Windham Township” (Corie). Besides this disturbing act of violence, recently there has been an attempted kidnapping that occurred April 14 in Dushore, which is a small town 45 minutes away from Towanda.

The victim was a 9-year-old girl, who was not harmed and returned home safely” (Turissini). “According to the police, the suspects are a white male, 25 to 35 years of age, bald or a ‘skin head,’ with no facial hair or glasses, and a white female with brown hair, worn in a ponytail” (Turissini). The statics I received on domestic violence are almost unbearable. “In a national survey of over 6,000 American families, 50% of the men frequently assaulted their wives also frequently abused their children” (Straus).

Men who have witnessed their parents’ domestic violence are three times more likely to abuse their own wives than children of non violent parents, with the sons of the most violent parents being 1000 times more likely to become a wife beater” (Straus). The spouse isn’t the only one at risk in a violent relationship. Statics show that the children are also at risk. “Over 3 million children are at risk of exposure to parental violence each year” (Carlson). “Child abuse is 15 times more likely to occur in families where domestic violence is present” (Stacy).

Children who witness violence at home display emotional and behavioral disturbances as diverse as withdrawal, low self-esteem, nightmares, self-blame and aggression against peers, family members and property” (Peled). “A comparison of delinquent and nondelinquent youth found that a history of family violence or abuse is the most significant difference between the two groups” (Miller). From these statics it is obvious that the child’s fate is in their parents’ hands.

Violence And Media

Television programming today can be a powerful influence in developing value systems and shaping behavior (Bee, 1998: 261-262). Unfortunately, much of today’s television programming is violent. For instance, the level of violence during Saturday morning cartoons is higher than the level of violence during prime time. There are about six to eight violent acts per hour during prime time, versus twenty to thirty violent acts per hour on Saturday morning cartoons (“Killing Screens,” 1994). Also, well before children finish their grade school, they will witness up to 8,000 murders and 100,000 violent acts on television (Levine, 1995: 143).

Moreover, children spend more time learning about life through media than in any other manner. The average child spends approximately twenty-seven hours per week watching television, which means that children spend most of their time only watching television and sleeping (Minow & LaMay, 1995: 32-33). Also, it has been proven by many studies that there is a positive relationship between television violence and behavioral problems in children. For example, research by Wood, Wong, and Chachere (1991:378) have shown that “exposure to media violence increase viewers’ aggression.

This paper will discuss that repeated exposure of young children and adolescents can negatively effect children’s behavior. This negative behavior can be acted out by imitation of violent acts observed on television, by accepting violence as a way to solve problems, and by desensitization to the amount of violence seen on television. Also, it will discuss how parents and teachers can prevent excessive viewing of television violence in children and adolescents. Children between the ages of one to four cannot always distinguish reality from fantasy.

Television programs for people of all ages is more often than not a fantasy world, yet young children do not understand that their favorite character does not exists in the real world. For example, because young children do not understand the line between fantasy and reality, one may find children “crawling down storm drains looking for them [Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles]” (Minow & LaMay, 1995: 33). This example clearly represents that children do not understand that their favorite characters are only made-up characters and that they do not exist in reality.

However, many children may act upon their favorite movie or film character in such way, that they will try to imitate them. Young children instinctively imitate actions, or rather model human behavior by observation without always possessing the intellect or maturity to determine if such actions are appropriate. For example, in Bandura’s modeling studies children expressed more aggressive behavior toward the blow-up doll called Bobo, when they observed an adult model “verbally and physically attack the doll in real life, on film, or in a cartoon (Westen, 1996: 206).

Therefore, due to the televisions’ programs role-model capacity to promote real world violence, there is a deep concern that watching violent programs on television will cause children to become more aggressive. As a result of viewing violent programs on television, children may become more aggressive toward other children, use violence and aggressiveness in their play, and use violence to solve their problems (Buckingham, 1997: 33; Abbot, 1997: 112).

Also, it has been suggested that young children will more likely imitate violent acts seen on television and model themselves to the character they like, if “the perpetrator of the violence is rewarded or at least not punished and when violence is presented as justified” (Ledingham et al. , 1993:4). A study has shown that children will more likely “pretend” or “imitate” the aggressor from a violent television program, when the aggressor is presented as the “good guy,” who is often the person in the show that punishes the “bad guy” (Cantor, 1998: 98).

Thus, it may be that children may often interpret a violent behavior of a character on television as a positive behavior, if the character was rewarded for his or her aggressive behavior. Children may also be more aggressive toward other children or even their parents, in order to get what they want. In most violent programs, as noted earlier, the aggressor is often rewarded for his or her violent and aggressive behaviors towards others. Also, in many television programs “violence…is typically shown as a successful way of solving problems and…people who are violent get what they want” (Bee, 1998: 262).

Therefore, one may suggest that children will express more aggressive behavior toward others, if they are denied a specific toy or an activity, such as going to the zoo. Perhaps the most telling example of children’s aggression can be seen after children see an advertisement on a desirable toy which is, more often than not, seen during children’s programming. Indeed, in one year the advertisers alone will spend over $470 million “on broadcast sponsorship aimed at children [who are] one of the hottest and fastest-growing consumer markets” (Minow & LaMay, 1995: 55-56).

About $168 billion is spent by parents in one year on children’s merchandise; a merchandise children have seen on television and would like to have (Minow & LaMay, 1995: 56). Children generally do not understand that advertised toys or other products cost money, and many of which may be well over family budget. However, columnist in Advertising Age said that “when you sell a kid on a product [and] if he can’t get it, he will throw himself on the floor, stamp his feet and cry” ( as cited in Minow & LaMay, 1995: 45).

Thus, if children learn from violent television programs that aggressive behavior may get them what they want, most of them will, therefore, try aggression to make their parents buy them a desirable toy. As noted earlier, children are exposed to enormous amount of violence before they finish their grade school, which can have a negative effect on their behavior as children and also as adults. Leonard Eron, a professor of Psychology at the University of Michigan, followed children from eight years of age into their adulthood.

These boys had been exposed to a large amount of violence on television during their childhood and later in their adulthood. As a result of the amount of the exposure to the violent programming on television, the adults had the potential to commit more serious crimes by the age of 30. Also, the same adults may “[have] more aggressive behavior when drinking, and [the more television violence they watched] the harsher the punishment they inflicted on their own children” (Levine, 1995: 145).

Thus, the evidence suggests that there is a positive relationship between viewing violent television programs and aggressive behavior in children and adults. However, not only do violent programs increase aggression and violence, but also children, who are already aggressive, will prefer watching violent programs on television in order to meet their taste. It has been proven that all children are born with “temperamental qualities [that are] carried in their genes” (Bee, 1998: 145).

Also, children who are “cranky, temperamentally difficult babies continue to show many of the same temperamental qualities ten years later” (Bee, 1998: 147). Likewise, aggressive children may prefer violent programs on television because “the fact that aggressive behavior leads to peer rejection means that aggressive children have fewer options for alternative activities” (Ledingham et al. , 1993: 7). On the contrary, children may often not watch the violent television programs for the violence itself, but will more likely watch it for the action that is portrayed in most violent programs.

For example, in a 1986 study researchers found that children would still be interested in watching television programs even with the absence of violence, and “eliminating violent content reduces the likelihood of stimulating aggressive behavior” (Cantor, 1998: 92). However, not many studies have been conducted in this manner, therefore “it would be premature to draw any conclusions about the effects of violence on children’s enjoyment” (Cantor, 1998: 92).

Earlier in this essay we have seen that the more children watch violent television programs, the more aggressive they may become. However, in many cases children, who are exposed to frequent viewing of violence on television, may become emotionally “desensitized” or less sensitive toward real life violence. For instance, children, who were exposed frequently to violence on television may accept and tolerate aggressive behavior in others more, than children who were not exposed to violent programs on television.

This may, however, have a negative impact on the children’s life because “the child may behave in a manner which is inappropriate in real life settings” (Ledingham et al. , 1993: 8). Most violent television programs show us that “violence is a social relationship” (“Killing Screens,” 1994). Violence often tells us who can get away with it and who deserves to be the victim. For instance, for every twelve women involved in a violent act there are ten male aggressors and women are half the time more likely to be the victim than the aggressor in many violent television programs.

Also, minority women are twice as likely to become the victims than to become the aggressors (“Killing Screens,” 1994). Also, violent television programs often portray “members of racial minorities as less powerful and poorer than the majority” (Greenfield, 1984: 43). Thus, children from various minority groups, such as female children, black children, or Hispanic children, may grow-up feeling more controllable by the majority of people in the society (often white men).

They also may grow-up more cultivated to accept their second place in society, as it has been portrayed on violent television programs (“Killing Screens,” 1994). This portrayal of minorities as powerless and poor may also affect the children and adults of minority groups as becoming the victims of racism, which may often result in violence, inability to have a job, or other negative aspects racism may bring upon people (Greenfield, 1984: 43).

Other evidence suggests that repeated viewing of violent television programs can lead to “a mean world syndrome” (“Killing Screens,” 1994); a belief for many children and adults that the “world [is] a more dangerous place than it actually is because violence is more salient and frequent on television than it is in most life experiences” (Ledingham et al. , 1993: 9). Thus, children and adults with fewer opportunities in society due to poverty, lack of education, health problems or other social aspects may end-up watching more television (Rosengren et al. 994: 146).

As a result, these people may feel more likely to become the victims of violence, to feel more in danger, to feel more insecure in the real world. Thus, they will demand protection from people who tell them they will protect them, and whom they will trust (“Killing Screens,” 1994). Although there are many behavioral problems with children who watch excessive amounts of violence, television programs can also have a positive effect on children of all ages.

For example, children who watched the television program called Sesame Street “gained in cultural pride, self-confidence, and interpersonal cooperation [and] white children…developed more positive views toward children of other races” (Greenfield, 1984:43). This positive attitude in children towards each other, without the barriers of aggression or racism, was due to the fact that Sesame Street often “portrays characters from various minority groups in a positive, nonstereotyped way”(Greenfield, 1984: 42), and violence is often absent in such children’s programs.

As noted earlier, children often learn how to behave from what they see on television, and the impact of television violence may be evident immediately in the children’s behavior or it may surface later in life. However, parents can protect their children from excessive television violence in many ways. First, parents should pay attention to the programs their children are watching and they should also watch with them. This would give the parents a chance to spend some time with their children and a chance to explain that what they see on television is not real.

Especially, a chance to point out that although the actor has not been actually hurt or killed such violence in real life will result in pain or even death (“Killing Screens,” 1994; Minow & LaMay, 1995: 161). Second, parents should set limits on the amount of time they spend watching television and also parents should challenge television’s power with other alternatives, such as reading or playing with friends. Reading would enable the children to use their own imagination, which is often oppressed by television.

Also, playing with friends may enable the child to practice his or her verbal communication, which is also oppressed by viewing excessive amount of television (Greenfield, 1984: 85-89). Third, parents should often disapprove of a violent program in front of their children, stressing the belief that such behavior is not the best way to solve a problem. Also, parents should refuse to let their children watch television programs known to be violent by changing the channel or turning the television set off, with the explanation of what is wrong with the program (Ledingham et al. 993: 10-13).

Fourth, parents should remember that they also are citizens, and together with other parents should demand the installation of a device called the v-chip into every television set. This v-chip is “a programmable computer chip that would allow parents lock out programs they deemed unsuitable for their children” (Minow & LaMay, 1995: 109-110). Therefore, a v-chip in a television set will enable the parents to watch their own program without the fear of exposing their own children. Last, parents should demand critical thinking be taught in all schools.

Children should be able to discuss with their teachers in school and parents at home what they see on television and in what manner the children perceive it. This type of education should be enhanced in every school in order to “encourage the children to watch critically and thoughtfully (Greenfield, 1984: 93-94). In conclusion, extensive viewing of violent television by children has the potential to cause greater aggressiveness. Children who view programs in which violence is very realistic, frequently repeated, and unpunished are more likely to imitate what they see.

It is due to their inability to distinguish reality form fantasy and their inability to understand right behavior from wrong. Parents and teachers should take measures to prevent harmful effects their children are susceptible from television violence, such as aggression, racial and sexual stereotyping. The amount of time children spend watching television and what they watch should be moderated, because television prevents children from other more useful activities, such as playing outside, reading a book, or just spending time with their parents.

Gandhi – His Influence in the Nonviolent Movement

I think Mohandas Gandhi was one of the most significant persons in the 20th century. He was the one who proved that it is possible to fight very successful without violence. He fought his whole life with humanity, tolerance, ideas and without violence. He showed the way to a better world. And still today there are many people who love him and who use his philosophy to change the world. A very important example is the fight against wars. Usually people who fight against a war try to fight without violence. They march through cities and try to convince people not to go to the war or something like that.

Another very popular example is the fight against nuclear energy or nuclear weapons. Demonstrators sit on the road in front of a nuclear power station or block the way of trucks or trains, which carry nuclear waste. Or, very popular example, the French tests of nuclear weapons in the pacific. People opposed them and the press all over the world was talking about these tests. That was non-violent resistance. Marches all over the world and other non-violent actions. And another good example is “Greenpeace”. They fight for the nature and their most important weapon is the public.

They don’t use violence but they use the press. The actions, they do are very spectacular and interesting for the whole world. Many people all over the world agree with what they are doing. An example for not using violence even if others use it against them was when they went very close to where the French wanted to test their nuclear weapons and the French soldiers entered their boat and destroyed lots of things and hit the Greenpeace activists. And all that was filmed by Greenpeace and these pictures were sent all over the world and came in the news everywhere.

Also Martin Luther King didn’t use violence in his fight for the ights of the black people in America. An example, which all of us see and experience from time to time is the strike. Gandhi made the strike as a way of fighting popular and it is still used today very often. At the start of the 20th century the British Empire was the biggest empire in the world. India was it’s biggest colony and was very important to Britain. Gandhi managed to get India independent of the British. The biggest Empire in the world lost a war of independence against a country like India which not even used violence and good weapons for it’s fights.

That was a sign for the world. And especially for the other countries ruled by the British. It was then that many of those countries saw their chance for independence. Gandhi showed them the way. And that was one of the main causes for the independence of many of those countries. In the 1960’s most colonies in Africa became independent and also Indochina became independent. I think that was also one of the things Gandhi caused or helped causing. Gandhi fought for the rights of minorities and people who were pushed down his whole life. He encouraged every one to stand up for their rights and to fight against cruelty.

He showed the whole world how easy it is to fight for rights and how successful it can be if there are many people fighting for the same thing together. Many people in the whole world decided to start fighting for their rights when they realized how successful Gandhi was. That was the start of many fights for humanity and for rights of minorities. Good examples are the fights of the blacks in North America. Especially Martin Luther King fought under the influence of things Gandhi had said. Or the fights in South America under Che Guevara or even the fights of Aborigines in Australia.

But those are only a few examples. Fights for rights happened and still happen all over the world again and again because there are always people who push others down. I think Gandhi played a big part in the fight for humanity and the rights of minorities. I think Gandhi was and is still a very significant person. He changed people’s minds and opened lots of peoples minds. Still today when people see the movie that was made about his life and his fights they think about this person and how successful non-violence and rebellion can be. And that it is important to save the (human) life and not to destroy it.

Athletes and Domestic Violence

A lady calls 911 and cries that her husband is beating her. She wants to file a report, but then asks the dispatcher if it is going to be in the paper the next day. When the dispatcher doesn’t reply, she changes her mind about the report and hangs up (Cart). The lady was Sun Bonds, wife of all-star San Francisco Giant, Barry Bonds. Like the wives of other famous players, she was a victim of spousal abuse. Athletes are praised as heroes for what they do on the playing field, but what they do off the field is never mentioned. As a disappointed sports fan, I want to draw attention to the domestic violence cases hat involve athletes.

Athletes have been abusing their spouses since sports were created, but not until the OJ Simpson trial has domestic violence become “the issue du jour. ” When Simpson was arrested on New Years Day for beating his wife, none of the newspapers reported it. When he pleaded no contest five months later, there was a small brief in the second page of The Los Angeles Times’ Metro Section (Cart). In the last three years alone the list of the accused included Dante Bichette, Barry Bonds, John Daly, Scottie Pippen, Jose Conseco, Bobby Cox, Mike Tyson, Warren Moon, Michael Cooper, Darryl Strawberry, Duane Causwell, Olden Polynice, Robert Parish, and OJ Simpson( Callahan, Sports Ilustrated).

And these are only the pro athletes whose wives had the courage to report the violence. Madeline Popa, president of Nebraska National Organization for Women stated, “Athletes are role models to small children. [Viewers] worry about the violence on television, but generally that is make- believe. When [there are] real-life heroes [engaging in violence], the message to young boys and girls is, ‘If you are a star athlete you can get away with things (qtd in L. A. Times). ”

There is an act of domestic violence every eighteen seconds in the United States. One in every three women will experience it, according to a study done by The L. A. Times. Abuse is the number one cause of injury for women. About six million women are abused each year; four thousand are killed (Cart). Although the sports world is not involved with all of these statistics, they are an important factor as to why the numbers are so high. The survey found that in 1995 there were 252 incidents involving 345 active sports players. Another survey done by Sports Illustrated reveals that eight to twelve omen a year are assaulted by their partners.

More women die from abuse than from car accidents and muggings combined. A study done by the University of Massachusetts and Northeastern University revealed that out of 107 cases of sexual assault reported in various universities, most of them involved male student-athletes although they only make up 3. 3% of the total male body (Callahan). This means that male student-athletes were six times more involved than males who were not student-athletes. Despite these studies some people believe that sports does not have a problem with the issue of domestic violence.

Richard Lapchick, director of the Center on the Study of Sport in Society at Northeastern University believes, “These exaggerations [in studies] do not discount that there is solid evidence of a problem in sport” and “Athletes are not necessarily more prone to domestic violence than others (quoted from The L. A. Times and Sports Illustrated). ” Marriah Burton Nelson, author of The Stronger Women Get, The More Men Like Football: Sexism and the American Culture of Sports, is one of the many people who disagree with Lapchick. She believes that sports create an aggression ound in men who beat their wives.

She says, It is not the sport themselves, but the culture of the sports in which male athlete and coaches talk about women with contempt. The culture of sports is a breeding ground. It begins with the little league coach saying, ‘you throw like a girl. ‘ This teaches boys to feel superior. Masculinity is defined as aggression and dominance. In order to be a man you have to be on top, to control, to dominate (qtd in L. A. Times). Dr. Myriam Miedzian author of Boys Will Be Boys: Breaking the Link Between Masculinity and Violence, agrees with Nelson. He thinks, “Athletes are taught to hurt people.

Empathy has been knocked out of them” (qtd in American Health). Most coaches do not allow their players to have a real relationship because they are afraid that a female influence will “soften” a player. The athletes are taught not to “see the guy across the line as a human being, how can they see women as human beings? As long as you rear boys to be tough, dominant, in charge, they simply won’t be prepared for contemporary women (Miedzian). ” Most researchers agree that one of the main reasons athletes abuse their pouses is because they have grown accustomed to the mistreatment of women which surrounds sports.

Sports culture creates a negative attitude towards women, attitudes of superiority that could lead to violence,” says Michael Messner, associate professor of sociology at USC (qtd in L. A. Times). Vance Johnson, a Denver Bronco wide receiver, admits that he did beat his first two wives. He blames his misconduct on himself and on the sports environment he lived in for teaching him that domestic violence is okay. He writes, “Everywhere I looked men abused women… All of the women were really battered and abused emotionally and physically.

It was just the way of life no one ever did anything about it (qtd in Vance pg 83). ” Jackson Katz of the Center for the Study of Sports in Society states, “[Athletes] believe they are entitled to have women serve their needs. It’s part of being a man. It’s the cultural construction of masculinity. ” “Elite athletes learn entitlement (L. A. Times). ” It is this entitlement given by coaches and fans, who worship star sports figures, that allows an athlete to abuse his spouse without having to uffer the consequences. This sends a message to girls that “If [they] get hurt, nothing will happen to [the perpetrator].

Girls have to stand alone. (Popa)” This leaves women with a feeling of worthlessness. Athletes live with a different set of rules. Dr. Tom House, a Major League Baseball coach as well as a psychologist, believes,Athletes aren’t bad people; they just don’t have life skills. Many of these players simply have no thermostats on their behavior mechanisms. When they act out, they are seeking to find some balancing their environment, to see how far they can go. And as long as they can put up good numbers on the field, no one will create boundaries for them (qtd in American Health).

So what is being done to prevent domestic violence among athletes? Very little. The pro league still do not punish perpetrators for their actions. But they have created shelters and organized funds for victims of this problem. Men are now encouraged to see specialists to solve their problem. Newspapers are printing more articles of cases involving athletes. Now there are daily reports of spousal abuse next to the box scores (I don’t know weather to consider this good or bad). Many men particularly famous athletes, are being held accountable for behavior that was previously brushed aside (Cart).

Lawrence Phillips, a Heisman Trophy candidate last season, was suspended from his football team because he was charged with spousal abuse. This was done a day after Phillips rushed for 206 yards and scored four touchdowns to give his team the victory. His coach, Rick Osborne, was applauded for taking a stand. Things are definitely moving forward, but not at a quick enough pace. Rita Smith, coordinator of National Coalition Against Domestic Violence thinks, Professional sports needs to take a very definitive stand against violence like [it] has with drugs(qtd in L. A. Times). ”

Alisa DelTufo, the founder of Sanctuaries for Families, a shelter for abused women, admits, “Domestic Violence is a very difficult cycle for a woman to break (qtd in Sports Illustrated). ” And the cycle of abuse is even harder to break in court for a wife of an athlete. “The police often work harder collecting autographs than evidence. The media and the fans, including those on the jury, tend to side with the icon over the iconoclast (Callahan).

When Sun Bonds finally decided to file a divorce, the judge, who was a baseball fan, awarded her a sum of $7,500 per month, which is half of what she was supposed to receive. The biased judge then asked Bonds’ for an autograph. We live in a world where men express their manliness by demeaning women. Where men are encouraged to act aggressive and dominant. Where men when asked, ‘what are they going to do? ‘ after they lost a game reply, ‘I’m going home to beat my wife (all-star, Charles Barkley). ‘ Unfortunately this is the reality we live in.

Sport associations need to set rules and punishments for a player who abuses his spouse. They can punish an athlete for using drugs, why can’t they do the same for perpetrators of domestic violence? I think coaches should discourage the bad-mouthing of women that takes place in the locker room, and encourage them to see counselors. The fact is as soon as an athlete puts on his uniform for the first time; he is viewed as a role model, whether he likes it or not. I agree that the recent attention means we are now taking domestic violence more seriously, but the victims of abuse want solutions, not publicity.

Violence In Entertainment And Its Effect On Society

Does entertainment influence society’s attitude towards violent behavior? In order to fully answer this question we must first understand what violence is. Violence is the use of one’s powers to inflict mental or physical injury upon another, examples of this would be rape or murder. Violence in entertainment reaches the public by way of television, movies, plays, and novels.

Through the course of this essay it will be proven that violence in entertainment is a major factor in the escalation of violence in society, once this is proven we will take all of the evidence that has been shown throughout this paper and come to a conclusion as to whether or not violence in entertainment is justified and whether or not it should be censored. Television with its far reaching influence spreads across the globe. Its most important role is that of reporting the news and maintaining communication between people around the world.

Television’s most influential, yet most serious aspect is its shows for entertainment. Violent children’s shows like Mighty Morphin Power Rangers and adult shows like NYPD Blue and Homicide almost always fail to show human beings being able to resolve their differences in a non-violent manner, instead they show a reckless attitude that promotes violent action first with reflection on the consequences later. In one episode of NYPD Blue three people were murdered in the span of an hour.

Contemporary television creates a seemingly insatiable appetite for amusement of all kinds without regard for social or moral benefits” (Schultze 41). Findings over the past twenty years by three Surgeon Generals, the Attorney General’s Task Force on Family Violence, the American Medical Association, the National Institute of Mental Health, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and other medical authorities indicate that televised violence is harmful to all of us, but particularly to the mental health of children (Medved 70-71).

In 1989 the results of a five year study by the American Psychological Association indicated that the average child has witnessed 8,000 murders and 100,000 other acts of violence on television by the time he or she has completed sixth grade. In further studies it was determined that by the time that same child graduates from high school he or she will have spent 22,000 hours watching television, twice as many hours as he or she has spent in school (Bruno 124).

In a study by the Centers for Disease Control, published by the JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association), it was shown that homicide rates had doubled between the introduction of television in the 1950’s and the end of the study in 1994. In that same study other possible causes for the vast increases in violence were studied, “the ‘baby boom’ effect, trends in urbanization, economic trends, trends in alcohol abuse, the role of capital punishment, civil unrest, the availability of guns, and exposure to television”(Lamson 32).

Each of these purported causes was tested in a variety of ways to see whether it could be eliminated as a credible contributor to doubling the crime rate in the United States, and one by each of them was invalidated, except for television. Children average four hours of television per day, and in the inner city that increases to as much as eleven hours a day, with an average of eight to twelve violent incidents per hour. It is also interesting to note that violence occurs some fifty-five times more often on television than it does in the real world (Medved 156).

FBI and census data show the homicide arrest rate for seventeen-year-olds more than doubled between 1985 and 1991, and the rates for fifteen-and sixteen-year-olds increased even faster. Movies also add their fair share to the problem of violence in society. “Researchers have established that copycat events are not an anomaly. Statistically-speaking, they are rare, but predictable, occurences. Television shows, novels, but especially movies-all can trigger copycat violence” (Medved 72).

As recently as November of 1995, New York City officials believed that the burning of a toll-booth clerk was a result of copycat violence, resulting from a similar scene in the movie Money Train. In 1994, Nathan Martinez shot and killed his stepmother and half sister after watching the movie Natural Born Killers at least six times. “Later, Martinez, who had shaved his head and wore granny sun glasses like Natural Born Killer’s main character Mickey Knox, reportedly told a friend, “It’s nothing like the movies”(Purtell 57).

In a 1993 film, The Program, there was a scene showing college football players lying in the center of a highway in an attempt to show their courage and dedication to their sport. This movie was later blamed for inspiring real-life imitators; (one of whom died). In numorous experiments based at pre-schools, researchers have observed children playing before and after seeing violent movies and television shows. “Following the violent program the children’s play is invaribly more aggressive. They are much more likely to hit, punch, kick, and grab to get their way.

In other words, violent entertainment teaches children how to use aggression for personal gain” (Medved 75). It is also hard to believe that movies like Rambo III with one hundred and six killings and Terminator 2 which showed countless killings plus a nuclear holocaust have at one time had their own line of children’s action figures even though both movies are rated R. One must seriously consider the idea that the movie studios are targeting a younger and easily influenced main audience. The ancient Greeks believed t….. hat violence should never be shown on stage, because people imitated what they saw.

Because of this they would only show the results of violence in order to deter any violent activity. The Greeks slowly but surely moved away from this idea as did other playwrights, and by the late 1500’s a new writer with a new view on violence was beginning to write plays. His name was William Shakespeare. Many critics were bothered by Shakespeare’s failure to follow the rules of the ancient Greeks, especially the rules concerning violence, but they also objected to Shakespeare’s comic sexual passages, which they considered vulgar.

Shakespeare was a writer during what has historically been called the Elizabethan era. Shakespeare’s plays reflect the shift from optimism to pessimism in Elizabethan society. “Elizabethans were keenly aware of death and the brevity of life” (Info Find), but death and violence fascinated the Elizabethans. “They flocked to the beheadings of traitors whose heads were exhibited on poles and watched as criminals were hanged, and they saw the rotting corpses dangle from the gallows for days” (The Student Handbook 2: 591). Elizabethans, literature and lives were very violent.

In Shakespeare’s play Hamlet all the main characters die through murder or suicide, all of which is shown on stage. Those critics who say excessive violence has only become a common occurence in today’s entertainment, should watch Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus with its’ stage direction, “Enter a messenger with two heads and a hand” (Klavan 98), or they should watch as quarts of stage blood are poured all over the “victims” in that same play. Novels, just like television, movies, and plays can cause violence. Throughout history novels have been the cause of violent behavior.

Those who say people can’t be influenced by books, should really look into the influence that a book called Uncle Tom’s Cabin had ten years prior to the Civil War. In 1851 Uncle Tom’s Cabin, written by Harriet Beecher Stowe was published. The novel told of the hardships and cruelties faced by African-American slaves in the south. The novel popularlized the abolitionist movement and is believed to have been a major cause for the Civil War, which even though a noble cause, resulted in over 500,000 deaths (The Student Handbook 2: 592). In 1980 Mark Chapman, a former mental patient, shot and killed John Lennon.

When asked why he did it, he indicated that he got the idea to kill Lennon from J. D. Salinger’s novel The Catcher in the Rye (590). He felt that he and the main character in the story, Holden Caufield, were very similar because they were both angry social outcasts, who were recovering from a mental breakdown (590). Violence is prominent in children’s novels too. R. L. Stine’s novel The Babysitter III, tells of decapitating a baby and in Christopher Pike’s novel, Monster, there is a graphic description of the effects of a shotgun being fired at a person’s head at close range.

Roderick McGillis, a professor of English at the University of Calgary and author of a book on children’s literature, has written that, “What disturbs me is that we’re developing in our culture, in our cities, a kind of siege mentality. A lot of thes books reinforce this, make it sort of normal to think that the world is a place in which violence can erupt at any moment” (Gray 54). With all of this evidence it is hard to ignore the fact that violence in entertainment can cause violence in society. This paper has now shown that there are copycat kilers who get the idea for their crimes from entertainment.

It has also been shown that the more violent movies and television children watch the more likely thay are to become aggressive and violent. Violence in entertainment and society is not isolated to the present, it was also very prominent in the writings of Shakespeare. With the evidence showing that violence in entertainment causes real life violence, it is very hard to say that violence in entertainment is justifiable. When little children and adults alike, fall victim to entertainment’s violent influence it is not justifiable and it is especially not justifiable when violent entertainment creates real life victims.

Is censorship the answer to the problem of violent entertainment? Should we tell people what they can or can’t read or watch? The simple answer to this question is no, we can’t censor violent entertainment. The First Amendment clearly states that: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The instinct to censor is the tragic flaw of utopian minds. “Our first job,” said Plato in his classic attack on the democratic system , “is to oversee the work of the story writers, and to accept any good stories they write, but reject the others” (Klavan 96). If the government ever did censor violent entertainment who knows where they would stop, or even if they would. Perhaps they would try to censor violent speech or try to censor the speech of those who disagreed with the actions of the government.

The simple message is don’t promote censorship, because it could easily get out of hand, and as the old saying goes “the road to hell is paved with good intentions. ” There are then only two ways to get rid of the violent entertainment in our lives: we could shame those who make the violent movies, television shows, books, and plays, into having a social conscience, making them be less prone to creating violent entertainment; or we could simply solve the problem ourselves, with a push of a button, or the turn of a page.

Television Violence Paper

Television violence is a negative message of reality to the children who see it. There is an excessive amount of violence being watched in millions of peoples homes every day, and this contributes to the growing amount of violent crimes that are being committed in our communities. This cycle of more and more sex and violence being portrayed as reality on television will not stop until something is done. Not one parent that I know wants his or her children watching people getting blown away and thrown off cliffs.

But the reality of it is that parents cannot be there 24 hours a day to monitor what their children are watching. In fact the television is often used as a baby-sitter, so that the parent can do housework, have an adult conversation, or just relax after work. The types of people who are the most likely to be harmed by the surplus of violence on TV are children. Ed Donnerstein stated in the February 15, 1996 edition of the Boston Globe the following: Violence turns out to do a lot of harm when it looks harmless.

One of these lessons children learn watching television is that there are few consequences to the person who commits violence or to the victim. Add to this positive portrayal of negative behavior the fact that childrens programs were least likely to show the bad effects of violence and most likely to make it funny” (Goodman pg. 23). We are showing children that violence is humorous and it cant do harm. A researcher by the name of Meltzoff studied learning in infants. He concluded that babies start to learn even before birth. A study by Meltzoff demonstrated observational learning in 14-month-olds.

After watching an adult on television handling “a novel toy in a particular way,” the babies were able to imitate the behavior when presented with the toy 24 hours later (Wood pg. 292). This study indicates that babies learn imitation very early in life. This is why parents should be more particular with what they allow their susceptible children to view on TV. The Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, television show for children, is a very good example of how violence on TV can affect our children. It is one of the highest rated kids television shows today.

The Power Rangers are everywhere, on everything, from lunch boxes to boxer shorts. And kids want it all. This creates a bind for the parents who know that these items are not so good for their kids. The Power Rangers is one of the most violent shows around right now and kids love it. The violence in the show has led New Zealand and two of the major networks in Canada to ban the program from their daily schedules. Nancy Carlson-Paige of Lesley College said in the December 1, 1994 Boston Globe,” Locally, teachers see evidence that Power Rangers interferes with normal childhood development.

It threatens to undermine childrens mental health because of the way it influences their play” (Meltz pg. A1). Chris Boyatzis of California State University at Fullerton completed the first scientific study of the impact of Power Rangers on children. It showed that those who watch the show are seven times more aggressive in their play than those who dont (Meltz pg. A1). Micki Corley, head 4-year-old teacher and coordinator of the Preschool Experience in Newton Centre said in the same December 1st Boston Globe,” They are confused by it.

They mimic the movements without understanding the consequences. I see kids saying things like, If Im the Red Ranger, Im not really Joe hitting Mary. Im Tommy or Zack hitting someone evil. But its Mary who is hurt and Mary who cries. You can see the confusion on their faces. Theyll say, But I didnt do that” (Meltz pg. A1). One can see that at this stage in the preschooler life he or she is not able to distinguish between real and pretend. Kids and Power Rangers supporters will say that the Power Rangers do have good points about them also.

They say that the characters show respect for adults, they are likable people, and there is always a moral. In fact, the program labels the morals at the end of each show. What we have to ask ourselves is, “Is it really worth it? ” Marilyn Droz, director of research for the National Coalition on Television Violence, conducted a study on the Power Rangers. This is what she came up with: 1. Seventy percent of the kids who watch the show say the fighting is what they like best. 2. In an hour of Power Rangers programming, there is an average of 211 acts of violence.

A typical Saturday morning cartoon hour generally has 25 violent acts per hour. A typical hour of an adult show has six acts of violence (Meltz pg. A1). The Power Rangers are an entertaining part of our childrens day but the few minutes a day they watch may have severe circumstances. The morals, and views of reality of the kids are shattered. These children do not think that what they are doing is wrong when they hit or kick. They say,” The Power Rangers do it, why cant I? ” This makes it even tougher on the parents.

They must explain that what the Power Rangers do on the television set is make believe. This confuses the child because they see it with their own eyes, yet it is not true. We must not pin point the Power Rangers as the one show that influences our childrens violent behavior. Other violent kid TV programs have a similar effect upon children. Cartoons and child programming get most of the attention under this issue because of the damage they can do to the children, but also theatrical movies, and not prime-time series television, bear much of the blame for TVs blood-and-guts reputation.

The UCLA Television Violence Monitoring Report, as published by the September 20, 1995 edition of the Boston Globe, stated that of 121 television series airing during the 1994-95 season, 10 were frequently violent or used violence in questionable ways (Elber pg. 84). Television and the American Child by George Comstock, states on page 27, that the National Television Violence Study, which took three years to finish, shows shocking information about what we are viewing everyday.

What the analysis of 2,693 television programs from 23 channels showed is that a majority of programs contain what the researchers call “harmful violence. ” They found that in 73 percent of the scenes, the violence went unpunished. In nearly half of the programs with slug-fests and shoot-outs, the victims miraculously never appeared harmed. In 58 percent they showed no pain. In fact, only 16 percent of the programs showed any long-term problems physical, emotional or financial. We must show the children that the things that the characters do, do hurt people, and that violence is never the answer to any problem.

We must teach the next generation how to work out his or her problems with his or her “enemy” by talking the problem out with the other, and compromising. Another, more scientific, solution for the problem of violence on TV is the V-chip, technology that would enable parents to block violent programming. President Clinton said on the matter of the V-chip, as stated in the March 6, 1996 edition of the Boston Globe, “Were handing the TV remote control back to Americas parents so that they can pass on their values and protect their children” (Jackson pg. 15).

New president of Creative Coalition, a group that lobbies for First Amendment rights, and ex-actor Christopher Reeves, support the V-chip, if Legislation maintains parental control of television viewing and ensure that only the industry would rate the programs. Reeve recognizes “a serious need” to curb television violence but asserted that the industry, not Congress, was best suited for the job (Hohler pg. 11). I do not agree with the passing of the V-chip. Why should the people who want programs with good morals pay for this? Parents should not have to empty their pockets to block violence and sex.

All programming should be family friendly. If lightweight comedies, public television and weekend sports are not steamy enough, then press your code and unleash AK-47 terror and near-porn into your living room. Instead the Sesame Street viewers have to shell out the cash, instead of the Chainsaw Massacre fans. They should go to the electronic store and buy a television with a S&G-chip, for sex & guts. Let them earn their violence by paying for it. Parents of peace are about to make electronic stores rich. Fans of gutter and gore do not have to lift a finger for either their clicker or their wallet.

I do not believe that we should be trying to solve this problem by putting a mere computer chip into the TV. We need to solve the problem by going to Hollywood and telling the industry that this type of programming in not necessary. We need to tell them to be creative, and use their brains. They are taking the easy way out by showing this stuff. In the long term we all suffer for it. There probably will never be an end to the controversy of television violence. We are getting more and more information and on the effects of television violence.

Violence Philosophy Essay

Violence in the basis upon which we live. Wherever we go there is some form or act of violence. Most people have lost the concept of right and wrong. The line that once stood between them is now blurred. People find that they do no harm when they commit an act thats wrong. Violence is seen in many forms today that there was ever before. Media has a large part in broadcasting violence. Violence is due to some of these issues such as easy access to weapons, the people who commit crimes have low self-worth and self esteem and religion has ecome a lesser and lesser part of society.

In the United States they have the Second Amendment which is the right to bear arms. This means anyone in the United States can have a gun. In the States it is said that they have enough guns to arm all the adults and half of the children. Then they wonder why their children go out and shoot people at their school. If they were such a gun happy country they would not have one of the highest death rates (by gun wounds) in the world. Since the access to many forms of weapons is gained to easily it is hard to regulate who has weapons and who doesnt.

Many people who do own weapons get injured or even die from their very own weapons. The Internet also makes it easily capable to make weapons such as bombs. Although the Internet can not be controlled the access to information on any subject is great. In America they have the easiest access to weapons. Most of the kids who had been found guilty of shooting their peers at school had very low self-esteem and self-worth. Most of these kids could have been helped in one way or another.

Teachers, parents, and friends of these people could have seen the warning signs. When children mope around and think nothing of themselves there is something wrong. A lot of tragedies could have been averted . If a lot more influence was put on thinking higher and better of yourself many of these children would be alive or free. Also, many of these children had been taunted or teased. If we could raise awareness on this many children would be free of depression. Most of all depression is the main cause for self-worth and self-esteem.

If these kids had not been taunted they would have not sought revenge. Now a days in a catholic school when asked most kids they said they did not go to church at all. If religion was a lot more reinforced would there be so much violence? People find other types of religion much more attractive. Such as cults and gangs. They find they belong more and the benefits are greater. They have false hopes in false gods. Also the lack of a solid family life results in poor knowledge of individuality; who they are and where they belong.

In conclusion the awareness for violence needs to be looked at. How many school shootings, deaths, and other teen violence acts does it take before we realize what has gone wrong. We shouldnt have to sit there and see out friends die because of these savage acts caused by a minor dispute. Everyone needs to listen up and learn. We need to avoid the useless acts of violence. Its easier said than done but once we crack down on violence there will be a lasting difference.

Violence in Media: You Are What You Watch

The rising tide of crime in North America exists primarily in the minds of the media. Television has created a perception that crime has multiplied, double or triple, in the past quarter-century due to violence. In fact, US Justice Department survey data shows, crime in the US has dropped 24 percent since 1971 and violent crime is down 2 percent. Crime statistics serve the media well. The single-minded reporting of violent news, the presentation of violent movies and violent reality-based “cop” shows has made violent crime a growth industry for the television, press, and media. Violence bombards us constantly.

Networks shoot in sequence one violent scene after another, delivering untold numbing horror into Canada’s living rooms, bedrooms, and nurseries. Taped TV violence, unlike real violence, repeats over and over in an accelerating pattern. The sounds and scenes of violence echo, firing in every direction without concern for targets or casualties. Canadians are developing a vision of themselves as hopeless victims of criminal forces they cannot control and cannot understand. While TV grows rich on violence, the nation is threatened by loss of self-esteem, fear of crime, and fear of our neighbours.

A permanent impression is made on the innocent minds of young children too young to read or speak. TV is destroying society’s respect for human life. Daniel Boorstin, librarian of US Congress, said that TV has the power “to conjure up a self-created reality that can mold public values and influence behaviour. ” The Canadian Government guarantees free speech and free press, but conjuring up anti-social values for our children is hardly what they had intended. Like it or not, TV has taken over the role of passing down the traditional values to our younger generation. It has replaced the role formerly filled by elders.

For a long time, elder members of the community have passed on family stories, history, and cultural myth. However, children who cannot yet talk can absorb the values transmitted by TV, ie. “violence is an accectable means, perhaps the preferred means to resolve conflicts and solve problems. ” TV violence makes a permanent impression on young children. It has been suggested that parents control the TV that children watch. Hardly. Many parents are working singles or couples who must rely on others for the parenting and raising of their children. Baby sitters use TV as the easiest source of entertainment for the children.

Domestic Violence Essay

Found at the scene of the crime two dead bodies stabbed brutally, and left to die at their house. This was the story that shocked the country in 1991. This was the start of the O. J. Simpson domestic abuse case that is still going on today. Unfortunately events like this happen many times over everyday in many setting all over the United states; however the victims of the other cases don’t get nearly as much publicity. Some facts about domestic abuse: An average of nine out of 10 women have to be turned away from shelters on.

The reason so few cases get assigned initially is the police usually on’t have enough officers to meet the demand At the Portland Women’s Crisis Line, where calls have doubled since the killings of Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman, they welcome the increased attention. From July 19,through March 31, 1993 a total of 3,665 domestic violence cases were reviewed in Portland Oregon. Of those, only 281 cases resulted in some action taken against the accused abuser. Some of this is because there is not enough police, but it is mostly because the abused person is scared.

For the last six months of 1993 and the first three months of 1994 Portland averaged about 1,000 calls each month or 12,000 calls a year. In January 1992, 30 criminal domestic violence complaints were issued. For January 1994, the number was more than 100. Nationally, estimates range from 2 to 4 million women assaults each year. Some studies show that 20 to 30 percent of all women who seek help at hospital emergency rooms are there because of domestic violence. Kyra Woods never made it to the emergency room. Whoever killed her saw to that.

She suffered 13 stab wounds to the back five of them so violent the knife came out the other side of her body. Wood’s mother, Mable, and two aunts wept quietly in a back row of the ourtroom as the prosecution argued against bail for Woods’ former boyfriend Jackson. Rod Underhill, the prosecutor, painted a picture of domestic violence. He told of a dramatic moment after the killing, when Woods’ 4-year-old son, holding a teddy bear, re- enacted the attack. “He put his hands around the neck of the bear and shook it,” Underhill said. “He began to pound it with a closed fist and slug it. Mable Woods said that her daughter never told her much about any abuse.

Neighbors, however, told police of hearing the couple fight violently. According to police reports, one neighbor said, “They fought so hard the pictures on the all shook back and forth. ” Jackson has pleaded innocent. His attorney, Angel Lopez, points out that no murder weapon has been found. He said the account from the 4-year-old boy could not be matched with any others, and he pointed out inconsistencies in the boy’s statements. Bail was denied. Jackson was accused of killing his former girlfriend, Kyra Woods, by stabbing her 13 times.

His bail hearing normally would have merited little public attention. What brought out the cameras and reporter was the Simpson case. Children are often the unseen victims of domestic abuse. they see one of their parents being harmed and this leads to high stress. Boys tend to be much more hostile when raised in a broken home. They are also ten times more likely to be abusive when they grow up. Girls raised in an abusive family tend to be very shy and afraid of boys. When they grow up they are 50 times more likely to marry an abusive husband.

The effect of domestic abuse on society is negative, but unfortunately it does not get much publicity unless it involves a figure that is well known such as O. J. Simpson. Another sad thing is that people often shrug off domestic abuse calling it a personal matter because they don’t want to get involved or they are afraid of what people will think about them Survivors have found the emotional strength to break from their abusers through different means: a hot-line number remembered from a restroom wall, a wallet card of crisis numbers from a pediatrician who would not overlook a mother’s black eye.

A grown child begging her mother to flee–and a shelter with an open bed. The women, some with their identities changed to protect their privacy, talked about shame, guilt, fear of triggering even greater violence, low self- worth, isolation, embarrassment, numbing depression, concern for children, foiled escapes, a unrealistic sense of reality, a walking-on-eggshells existence nd, perhaps above all, an illogical hope that something would change. “the abuser can make everything sound so good,” says Florence A. Reid, 45, now living in transitional housing through Bradley- Angle House after 10 years in a violent marriage and another 13 year relationship, in an abusive relationship both with men who were full of promises after the pummelings.

Even now, 25 years later, after dozens of broken ribs, a broken jaw, pushes downstairs, and out a car, and thrice-weekly bouts with her husband sometimes drunk, sometimes sober–kicking with his work boots as she lay on the floor; ven now, Reid has pipe dreams of living happily with this teen-age love, of sitting on a front porch and talking about the old days. Wouldn’t that be nice? ” asks Reid. “Just live a normal life with the father of my children. ”

“The first time I tried leaving my husband was 1972. I took the kids to a friend’s house,” she remembers. “He found me and brought a gun with him. Of course, I just went back. ” In 1992, after dozens of tries, Ruth left for the last time, with the help of a daughter, and ended up at West Women’s & Children’s Shelter. Ruth, who now works part-time at a bank, sighs. “I don’t know. For years, y excuse was the kids. And of course, I realize that was probably the worst thing I did for them.

And I always thought, ‘Things will get better if I do this. ‘” Other women clung to similar fantasies, sure the goodness and charm would return–if they could love him better, do everything right. When someone abuses another person they often have a certain attitude such as thinking that it is the abused persons fault and that they brought it upon themselves. extensive studies have shown this. The abuser often blames the person who was abused for their troubles. Abusers often have a hard time communicating. Unfortunately the abuser is rarely gets action taken against them.

But when they do it is often very serious. The least that could happen is that the abuser gets a restraining order. In more serious cases there can be a number of penalties ranging from short prison term to a life sentence. This is the information that I found when I looked up domestic abuse. As you can see some of these facts are rather grim but people are becoming more open to ideas and people are reporting more than ever. I hope that this stops being the most un reported crime in the United States so that we can get the problem under control.

Media Violence and The Effects on Children

On September 11th, 2001, millions around the world crowded around televisions across the globe, watching the horrific scenes of terrorism that had struck New York City, Washington, D. C and Pennsylvania on that ill-fated and now infamous morning. Our sense of security and impenetrable protection crashed 110 stories to the shaken streets of New York City.

We watched with shock and horror, disbelief and grief as the images were repeatedly flashed before our eyes, with the all the drama of the plane crashing through the World Trade Center and bursting into an indescribable ball of fire and of the surreal scenes of demolished piles of what used to be the Twin Towers of New York City. We witnessed desperate pleas for help from family members of missing victims. We were shown images of the wounded victims and of the unimaginable destruction in the streets of New York.

Our expeditious system of mass media provided us with an immediate window to this dramatic and unprecedented tragedy. We were not alone as we stood looking through this window to the trauma and terrorism enveloping us. As we looked on with fear and horror, so did children. As we watched the 24-hour coverage of the events unfolding, so did children. Every major station broadcast continuous coverage of the “attack on America” for days following the tragedy.

While networks provided live coverage, personal interviews and professional analysis, cable stations flashed messages of condolence and sympathy across the bottom of the screen during regular programming, as a constant reminder and acknowledgement of tragedy that had shaken us to our knees. If we as adults were so affected by the trauma of the events, then what can be said for the children who witnessed these same images of horror and terrorism? How, with such an undeveloped capacity to understand the world and the proximity of danger, can we say that children were not affected by the violence of this tragedy?

In a time when adults cannot fully understand the context of the violence in our world, how can children possibly be expected to make sense of it? They cannot. Living in a culture and time where violence permeates countless aspects of society in both fiction and reality; visual, verbal, implied and overt; and given the prevalence and pervasiveness of the violence surrounding us, it is evident that exposure to violence in the media casts some negative affect upon children. In the weeks following the tragedy, the images of the attack on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center were banned from the media.

Government official and scientific experts agreed that the trauma incited by these images was detrimental to children. President Bush expressed his concern for the mental scars that could likely be inflicted upon children as a result of this prevalence of terrorism and violence in the media. It is apparent then that experts concur; the violent images permeating the media could likely have a negative effect on children, causing them to feel unsafe, and to live in fear for their own lives and those of their loved ones.

In an interview with CNN, Dr. Jeffrey Mitchell reported that: Children neurologically are not well suited to deal with extremes of trauma, so when they see this kind of stuff, right now it may look like some the movies they have seen on television. Except in this case people don’t get up and act in the next (movie). In this case they’re injured because they’re injured or they’re dead because they’re dead. So it can be very traumatizing for children to see these images on TV. They don’t understand what this is all about…

So that’s hy I’m suggesting that we not allow an excessive amount of TV for children at this particular point (Mitchell, 2001). The news is not the only source of violence for children. Our fictional television programming is responsible for significant exposure of children to media violence. Content analysis of media programming proves the prevalence of violence in the media today. The access to television, the Internet, and other media outlets is at an all time high. About 99% of American households have television, often two or three sets.

Nielson reports show that children ages 2 to 11 watch an average of 23 hours of television each week, while teenagers devote an average of 21. 5 hours per week to television viewing (Hepburn, 1997). From an early age, both parents and children rely heavily on television as a source of entertainment and diversion. Parents often use the television as a babysitter to occupy children and free time for themselves. Television and the media are used as educational tools both in the home and in the schools.

The problem with this prolonged exposure lies in the pervasive nature of violent content in television programming. Content analysis studies conducted by countless commissions, foundations and organizations reveal in fact the indisputable presence of violence in television programming. The National Television Violence Study, monitoring all types of TV channels; basic cable, premium cable, public broadcasting, independent broadcasting, and networks; concluded that 57% of television programs portray violence, often with more than one violent act in each program.

According to a recent study published by the Center for Media and Public Affairs, more than 1,800 acts of violence occur during 18 hours of television programming. It has been found that more than 26 acts of violence are seen in the average network children’s program (Posch, 1993). Than 75% of these violent acts depicted no punishment or consequences for the perpetrators. Worse yet, children’s programs were found to portray more violence than normal adult programming. Children’s programs contain nearly 10% more violence than the average program.

It is in children’s shows such as cartoons where these violent acts are more likely to be portrayed as comical or unrealistic, failing to show the realistic effects of violent acts (Hepburn, 1997). Clearly violence is a prevalent element in the media, but does violence in the media cause violent behavior in children? Is the media responsible for the acts of violence committed by children? These are the questions debated by countless numbers of the most educated and well-informed experts. The answers to these questions are not easily reached and fall along the same lines as the age-old question; which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Does violence in the media incite children to commit violent acts and to behave aggressively? Or is it that violent children and children prone to violent, aggressive behavior are drawn to violent television and attracted to the violence portrayed in the media? These disputed questions can be argued indefinitely, with strong evidence for either side. The question here is whether violence in the media has some negative effect on children. The evidence proving this negative effect is difficult to dispute.

According to Jonathan L. Freedman, a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto, “There’s no question there’s a correlational link, that children who watch television violence tend to be more aggressive” (Mifflin, 1999). The idea here is that correlation between media violence and violent behavior does not necessarily mean that media violence is the cause of these behaviors and aggressive acts. The Judiciary Committee of the U. S. Senate argues that the media “is one of the principal causes of youth violence” and reports that “television alone is responsible for 10% of youth violence” (Anonymous, 1999).

This direct causation is disputable. How can we prove whether it was the chicken or the egg that came first? The research on causation between media violence and violent tendencies in children is easily scrutinized. Maggie Cutler of The Nation argues that “there is no way, after all, to lock two clones in a black box, feed them different TV, movie and video-game diets and open the box years later to determine that, yes, it was definitely those Bruce Lee epics that turned clone A into Jesse Ventura, while clone B’s exposure to the movie Babe produced a Pee Wee Herman” (Cutler, 2001).

While it may be difficult to establish a causal relationship between the pervasive nature of violence in the media and violent tendencies in children, it is significantly less disputable to say that the prevalence of violence permeating television and media outlets has a negative effect on children. If experts believed that this violence has no effects on children, why then would they regulate exposure to the images of violent destruction and terrorism that occurred on September 11th?

If corporations pour millions of dollars into marketing research and analysis in order to produce an advertisement that can in an instant or in a 30-second commercial influence both adults and children to change their consumer spending habits and influence our purchasing decisions and desires, how can one argue that the frequent depictions of violence that permeate the media have no effect on children?

As one expert argued before Congress, “The repeated denials by network executives that televised violence has no effect on the behavior of children or adolescents are inconsistent with the use of repetitive commercials to sell products. ” (Posch, 1993). The regulation of Program Length Commercial by the Federal Trade Commission clearly acknowledges the incapacity of children to determine what is real and what is fiction and recognizes the influence of the media on children’s perceptions.

Media theorists define several theories of media effects, including the cultivation, or “mean world” theory. Whether or not behaviors are influenced or caused by violent portrayals in the media, it is quite possible that the frequent depictions of violent acts shape children’s view of the world as one of a dangerous and scary place where murders, rape and violent crimes occur on a regular basis. Exposure to media violence can also have the opposite effect, desensitizing both children and adults to the brutality of violent acts.

Whether media violence incites children to commit violent acts and display aggressive tendencies is a question that remains a topic of heated social debate. Theorist can argue that media violence shapes children’s views of the world as dangerous and predominately violent or that the overexposure to violence leads to desensitization in a world where violence is perceived as commonplace. Social scientists can waiver between correlation and causation involving violence and media effects.

The argument most difficult to dispute is that media violence has some negative effect on children. Content analysis reveals that violence is in fact a prevalent element in media and that overexposure of children to television and media outlets allows these effects to influence children and their perceptions of the world. Permeating our lives, it would be difficult to avoid the influence of media violence.

For impressionable children who are constantly shaping and reevaluating the world around them, media violence plays a role in the formation of their negative perceptions of society and their surrounding environment. They are affected by the frequent influence of violent depictions in the same way that they are influenced to want a toy because of the commercial that promotes it. It is the degree and severity of this effect that remains open for heated debate in the arena of social policy and public interest.

Domestic Violence Report

A problem not taken seriously The first reaction upon hearing about the topic of battered men, for many people, is that of incredulity. Battered husbands are a topic for jokes (such as the cartoon image of a woman chasing her husband with a rolling-pin).

One researcher noted that wives were the perpetrators in 73% of the depictions of domestic violence in newspaper comics (Saenger 1963). Battered husbands have historically been either ignored or subjected to ridicule and abuse. In 18th-century France, a battered husband “was made to wear an outlandish outfit and ride backwards around the village on a donkey” (Steinmetz & Lucca 1988).

Even those of us who like to consider ourselves liberated and open-minded often have a difficult time even imagining that husband battering could take place. Although feminism has opened many of our eyes about the existance of domestic violence, and newspaper reports often include incidents of abuse of wives, the abuse of husbands is a rarely discussed phenomenon. One reason researchers and others had not chosen to investigate husband battering is because it was thought to be a fairly rare occurrence. Police reports seemed to bear this out (Steinmetz 1977), with in some cases a ratio of 12 to 14. emale victims to every one male victim.

But another reason is that because women were seen as weaker and more helpless than men due to sex roles, and men on the other hand were seen as more sturdy and self-reliant, the study of abused husbands seemed relatively unimportant. Research begins to show the reality In 1974, a study was done which compared male and female domestic violence. In that study, it was found that 47% of husbands had used physical violence on their wives, and 33% of wives had used violence on their husbands (Gelles 1974).

Half of the respondents in this study were selected from either cases of domestic violence reported to the police, or those identified by the social service agency. Also in 1974, a study was released showing that the number of murders of women by men (17. 5% of total homicides) was about the same as the number of murders of men by women (16. 4% of total homicides). This study (Curtis 1974), however, showed that men were three times as likely to assault women as vice-versa. These statistics came from police records. [The murder statistic was no big news, by the way.

In 1958, an investigation of spousal homicide between 1948 and 1952 found that 7. 8% of murder victims were husbands murdered by wives, and 8% were wives murdered by husbands (Wolfgang 1958). More recently, in a study of spousal homicide in the period from 1976 to 1985, it was found that there was an overall ratio of 1. 3:1. 0 of murdered wives to murdered husbands, and that “Black husbands were at greater risk of spouse homicide victimization than Black wives or White spouses of either sex” (Mercy & Saltzman 1989)]

The subject of husband-battering had finally been addressed, but not to the great satisfaction of anyone. Although it had finally been shown that there was violence being perpetrated both by wives and husbands, there was no information about relative frequency or severity, or who initiated the abuse and who was acting in self defense. Furthermore, some researchers became concerned that the use of police or social services references in choosing subjects to study might be biasing the results.

In short, they recognized that battered husbands might be nearly invisible next to their female counterparts. In 1976, for instance, in a critique of the Curtis report (which found women less likely to assault, but as likely to murder, as men), Wilt & Bannon wrote that “nonfatal violence committed by women against men is less likely to be reported to the police than is violence by men against women; thus, women assaulters who come to the attention of the police are likely to be those who have produced a fatal result.

Steinmetz uncovers some suprises In 1977, Suzanne Steinmetz released results from several studies showing that the percentage of wives who have used physical violence is higher than the percentage of husbands, and that the wives’ average violence score tended to be higher, although men were somewhat more likely to cause greater injury. She also found that women were as likely as men to initiate physical violence, and that they had similar motives for their violent acts (Steinmetz 1977-78).

Steinmetz concluded that “the most unreported crime is not wife beating — it’s husband beating” (Langley & Levy 1977). In 1979, a telephone survey was conducted in which subjects were asked about their experiences of domestic violence (Nisonoff & Bitman 1979). 15. 5% of the men and 11. 3% of the women reported having hit their spouse; 18. 6% of the men and 12. 7% of the women reported having been hit by their spouse. In 1980, a team of researchers, including Steinmetz, attempted to address some concerns about the earlier surveys (Straus, Gelles & Steinmetz, 1980).

They created a nationally representative study of family violence and found that the total violence scores seemed to be about even between husbands and wives, and that wives tended to be more abusive in almost all categories except pushing and shoving. Strauss & Gelles did a followup survey in 1985, comparing their data to a 1975 survey (Strauss & Gelles 1986). They found that in that decade, domestic violence against women dropped from 12. 1% of women to 11. 3% while domestic violence against men rose from 11. 6% to 12. 1%. The rate of severely violent incidents dropped for both groups: From 3. to 3. 0% of women victimized and from 4. 6% to 4. 4% for men.

In 1986, a report appeared in Social Work, the journal of the National Association of Social Workers (Nov. /Dec. 1986) on violence in adolescent dating relationships, in which it was found that girls were violent more frequently than boys. Another report on premarital violence (O’Leary, et al) found that 34% of the males and 40% of the females reported engaging in some form of physical aggression against their mates in a year. 17% of women and 7% of men reported engaging in severe physical aggression. % of the men and 30% of the women reported having been abused.

Also in 1986, Marriage and Divorce Today, a newsletter for family therapy practitioners, reported on a study done by Pillemer and Finkelhor of the Family Violence Research Laboratory of the University of New Hampshire. The study, based on interviews of over 2000 elderly persons in the Boston metropolitan area, found that 3. 2% of the elderly had been abused. 52% of the abuse victims were men. Women’s violence is hard to believe The idea of women being violent is a hard thing for many people to believe.

It goes against the stereotype of the passive and helpless female. This, in spite of the fact that women are known to be more likely than men to commit child abuse and child murder (Daly & Wilson 1988 report 54% of parent-child murders where the child is under 17 were committed by the mother in Canada between 1974 and 1983, for instance. The Statistical Abstract of the United States 1987 reports that of reported child maltreatment cases between 1980 and 1984 between 57. 0% and 61. 4% of these were perpetrated by the mother. Nagi 1977 found 53. of perpetrators were female, 21% male and 22. 6% both.

Note that because mothers tend to have more access to children than do fathers that these results should not be interpreted to mean that were things equal, women would still commit more abuse). In addition, a study in a doctoral dissertation by psychologist Vallerie Coleman of 90 lesbian couples, showed that 46% had experienced repeated violent incidents (Garcia, 1991). Results like these are greeted with great suspicion by those who see domestic violence as a political issue to be exploited rather than a social problem to be solved.

Studies of women who murder Coramae Mann, a criminologist at Indiana University, studied the case records of all murders committed by women between 1979 and 1983 in six major U. S. cities. Her findings contradicted commonly-held ideas about women who murder, and she was criticized by some people for this. “They would raise the question, ‘Well you have these poor battered women. ‘ I said these weren’t poor battered women. Many already had violent criminal records. They weren’t weak or dependent. They were angry. ”

Strauss & Gelles commented in their 1986 report that “violence by wives has not been an object of public concern… In fact, our 1975 study was criticized for presenting statistics on violence by wives. ” Yet domestic violence is an issue framed in the media and in the political arena as one of male perpetrators and female victims. Violence in gay and lesbian relationships is rarely discussed, and violence against men in heterosexual relationships less so. Battered men wonder where to turn When it is addressed, there is a response.

When I became the caretaker of a memorial fund for a male victim of domestic violence, I unexpectedly took on the role of counselor for men calling from all over the country to talk to me at length about their or their father’s victimization. When the subject of battered husbands was raised on British television and the London Times did an article on the subject, hundreds of calls came in from male victims to a special helpline set up by a Women’s Aid group (Rooke 1991). The terms “wife beating” and “battered women” have become political expressions, rather than descriptions of reality.

And because the issue of domestic violence has been substantially taken out of the arena of serious sociological study, and thrust into the political arena, the definitions of spousal abuse, and the proposed remedies to spousal abuse, will be political ones — not necessarily ones which reflect the reality of the existing problems. In a book on domestic violence, Roger Langley and Richard C. Levy conclude a chapter on battered husbands by saying, “Husband abuse should not be viewed as merely the opposite side of the coin to wife abuse. Both are part of the same problem, which should be described as one person abusing another person.

The problem must be faced and dealt with not in terms of sex but in terms of humanity” (Langley & Levy 1977, p. 208). Ironically the book in which this quote appears is entitled “Wife Beating: The Silent Crisis. ” Laws favor female victims Legislation about domestic violence is always orientated toward the female victim. For instance, in 1991, Senator Joseph Biden again introduced the “Violence Against Women Act” which at this writing has passed the senate Judiciary Committee. It has a section called “Safe homes for Women” which specifically allocates funds to “women’s” shelters (Biden 1991, also see Boxer 1990).

Also note actions like that of Ohio governor Richard F. Celeste who granted clemency to 25 women who were in prison for murdering their husbands. The reason he gave for this was the “Battered Woman Syndrome” which, obviously, no man can claim as his defense (Wilkerson 1990). There is very little concern shown either for the idea of making spousal abuse a capital crime with the victim as extra-judicial executioner, nor for the idea that perhaps some of the men who murder their spouses might be suffering from an analogous “Battered Man Syndrome. ”

A frightening case from Ohio There is only one case I am aware of in which a man was able to use a similar defense. Warren Farrell writes about it in his book Why Men Are the Way They Are (Farrell 1986, p. 231): Betty King had beaten, slashed, stabbed, thrown dry acid on, and shot her husband. Eddie King had not sought prosecution when she slashed his face with a carpet knife, nor when she left him in a parking lot with a blade in his back. Neither of these incidents even made the police records as statistics. She was only arrested twice — when she stabbed him so severely in the back and so publicly (in a bar) that the incidents had to be reported.

All these stabbings, shootings, and acid-throwings happened during a four-year marriage. During a subsequent shouting match on the porch of a friend’s house, Betty King once again reached into her purse. This time Eddie King shot her. When an investigation led to a verdict of self-defense, there was an outcry of opposition from feminists and the media. Farrell compares this case, in which “a two-second delay could have meant his death,” to that of the celebrated case made into the television movie The Burning Bed in which the protagonist murdered her husband while he slept. A serious problem

In conclusion, I think that the available data show that husband battering is a serious problem, comparable to the problem of wife battering. Even if the statistics collected in the last several years are completely wrong and only one in 14 victims of spousal abuse are men, these are men who are hurting and need services that are currently not available. There is such a strong stigma against being a battered man, carried over from mideval times when the battered man was considered the guilty party, that special attention should be paid to reaching out to these victims. Simply opening up “Women’s Shelters” to men is not enough.

Blaming Violence and Sexuality on the media

The Matrix is by far one of my favourite movies, but what has driven me to write on such a topic is the negative feedback fellow breakthrough movies and other forms of entertainment are getting from society in general. Yes it is true that two seemingly normal students shot and killed tweleve of their fellow classmates and one teacher at Columbine Highshcool, but what has this got to do with the media? These boys were obviously sick individuals. Certainly we were all exposed to the same movies, comics, and TV shows, but you don’t see me or any of my friends going around killing anyone.

Yes, Neo said “Guns, lots of guns”, but once again how does any of this relate to the situation at hand? What is more violent than traditional and modern Chinese and Japanese movies? Have you seen any anime lately? Look at their socities, wholesome as ever. Does this not say something? Quite frankly if your child has grown up thinking that just because he/she sees something bad on TV it’s ok to mimic it, that says something about his/her upbringing. It’s innate behaviour for children to mimic.

It’s how they learn to talk, walk and help themselves, but just like how their physical development needs to be supplemented by parents, their mental development needs to be nurtured too. THIS! is the difference between law-abiding people and criminals. THIS! is the root cause for violence and other such behaviour. THIS! is where the blame should be placed, NOT on The Matrix! Parents need to realize that they have the right to be involved in their kids lives. They have the right to say no.

All the arguements and silent treatments won’t go in vain if you just stick with them until they’re mature enough to handle their own lives. Another thing that absolutely disgusts me is the “women as sex objects” crap. For those of you who aren’t familiar with this, it refers to the portrayal of women (in laymans terms), as being nothing but pretty and sexual beings. Yes, Xena is scantily clad. Yes, Supergirl shows a lot of leg, but that doesn’t mean diddly squat. Women are always complaining about the world being male dominated, but the men don’t look at Xena solely in a sexual way.

The whole idea behind the show was to promote girl power and be a spin off of the hit series Hercules. She’s a heroine and a damn good one. Why can’t these women grasp the concept? It’s almost as if they want to have their cake and eat it too. They use sex to control men whether want to admit it or not and yet they don’t want to be portrayed that way. The fact is, the basis for the media is the way of life in our societies, so if they see an overwhelming demand for things such as Wonder Bras, breast enhancers, thong underwear etc… Then there’s no reason to be surprised about the way we’re portrayed.

Does The Media Encourage Violence

Many people think that some of the things that are shown on T. V, the radio, newspapers, or even the theatre encourage violence today. Personally I think this isn’t generally accurate but may be true in a small number of incidents. In my view, people today and the media itself has to balance on a very thin line of what people want, and what is socially and politically correct. Let’s take for example ‘rocky’ a boxing film. Many children and parents enjoy watching this but there always going to be a certain number of parents who will protest because of the occasional swear word or fighting scene.

There is always the option of sending smaller children to bed, and there’s even a guideline watershed time to observe. On the whole, I don’t think there’s any real danger of watching these kinds of programmes, as long as the children are taught not to use these (in this case, boxing) moves on others. If the violence needs to be portrayed to show the story or sequence in a film it should not be discouraged but showed why it is showed.

On the other hand, acts of needless violence on television like W. W. F wrestling should be either discouraged altogether, or children should be taught that the moves are done under very controlled ircumstances and are not really acts of anger. Otherwise you may get a child that thinks doing a move on someone else wont hurt them, but in reality may cause them great pain. Any film or programme show after nine o clock, could show violence, and parents need to be taught this. I don’t think that newspaper can encourage violence at all.

They have the often difficult job of relating the news to people. How can the news encourage violence? People will always want to know what’s happening around them and there is always a war or a clash of two sides somewhere in the world at any one time in the world. Children cannot be kept inside a ‘utopia’ all there lives. I feel the real world is much nastier than even the media can portray so reading the news people are going to see what’s happening in other parts of the world.

The radio and theatre, in my view, can’t have a lot of violence on it, or what violence it does have cannot encourage violence as much as television because in radio the visual element is not there. Some plays on the radio may portray anger, but the rest is entirely up to the person’s imagination. Is encouraging a child’s imagination a bad thing? I think the ‘human being’ eeds to see, hear, or feel anger once in a while. In my view anger and violence plays a big part in our society today.

I’m not encouraging this, but I can’t imagine a world without violence. Today I think children are exposed to much more violence than they where 150 years ago, but this doesn’t necessarily prove that it encourages violence. Children are going to come into contact with violence in one way or another and I don’t think they should be over protected. On the other hand parents should be the judge of what there children should be viewing, reading, or listening to.

Does The Media Encourage Violence

Many people think that some of the things that are shown on T. V, the radio, newspapers, or even the theatre encourage violence today. Personally I think this isn’t generally accurate but may be true in a small number of incidents. In my view, people today and the media itself has to balance on a very thin line of what people want, and what is socially and politically correct. Let’s take for example ‘rocky’ a boxing film. Many children and parents enjoy watching this but there always going to be a certain number of parents who will protest because of the occasional swear word or fighting scene.

There is always the option of sending smaller children to bed, and there’s even a guideline watershed time to observe. On the whole, I don’t think there’s any real danger of watching these kinds of programmes, as long as the children are taught not to use these (in this case, boxing) moves on others. If the violence needs to be portrayed to show the story or sequence in a film it should not be discouraged but showed why it is showed.

On the other hand, acts of needless violence on television like W. W. F wrestling should be either discouraged altogether, or children should be taught that the moves are done under very controlled ircumstances and are not really acts of anger. Otherwise you may get a child that thinks doing a move on someone else wont hurt them, but in reality may cause them great pain. Any film or programme show after nine o clock, could show violence, and parents need to be taught this. I don’t think that newspaper can encourage violence at all.

They have the often difficult job of relating the news to people. How can the news encourage violence? People will always want to know what’s happening around them and there is always a war or a clash of two sides somewhere in the world at any one time in the world. Children cannot be kept inside a ‘utopia’ all there lives. I feel the real world is much nastier than even the media can portray so reading the news people are going to see what’s happening in other parts of the world.

The radio and theatre, in my view, can’t have a lot of violence on it, or what violence it does have cannot encourage violence as much as television because in radio the visual element is not there. Some plays on the radio may portray anger, but the rest is entirely up to the person’s imagination. Is encouraging a child’s imagination a bad thing? I think the ‘human being’ eeds to see, hear, or feel anger once in a while. In my view anger and violence plays a big part in our society today.

I’m not encouraging this, but I can’t imagine a world without violence. Today I think children are exposed to much more violence than they where 150 years ago, but this doesn’t necessarily prove that it encourages violence. Children are going to come into contact with violence in one way or another and I don’t think they should be over protected. On the other hand parents should be the judge of what there children should be viewing, reading, or listening to.

Effects of Different levels of T.V Violence on Aggression

The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of different levels of television violence on grade school children. Since some studies show that younger children are more prone to aggression than older children. This study is designed to show how violence plays a role in aggression. The intention is to show that violence causes different aggression levels between males and females. The second purpose of this study is to show if there are any significant differences between males and females and aggression induced by violence.

The information on gender difference and aggression is controversial. All the children were mixed in this experiment combined the male and females children in mixed groups. Each group randomly received 10 males and 10 females. One of the groups was the control group which viewed the non-violent video and the second group was the experimental group, which viewed a violent video. Girls and boys who had about the same level of aggression were chosen for the experiment. Two televisions shows that contained different levels of violence were used in this study.

Two volunteer teachers were present while the children viewed the videos. Measurement of aggression will be gathered from each student using a picture aggression test. Aggression levels were rated on a scale of 1 though 11, 11 being the highest level of aggression. The statistical results from group A, the boys who viewed Power Rangers, showed the mean of their level of aggression was 8. 4. The variance, the precise measure of variability, of this group (1. 64) was a significant difference. Group B for girls, who viewed Sesame Street, their mean was 1. nd their variance was 0. 16, also another significant difference.

When comparing the numbers between the boys and girls in group A, the boys did appear to have a higher aggression level, than the girls in the same group, when they viewed the Power Ranger. In group B, the aggression level was higher for the girls than for boys in the same group, when they viewed Sesame Street. Effects Of Different Levels Of T. V Violence On Aggression: Potential Gender Differences Violence in the United States has risen to alarmingly high levels.

Whether one considers assassination, group violence, or individual acts of violence, the decade of the 1960s was more violent than the several decades preceding it and ranks among the most violent in our history. The United Sates is the clear leader among modern, stable democratic nations in its rates of homicides, assault, rape, and robbery, and it is among the highest in incidents of group violence and assassinations. This high level of violence is dangerous to our society. It is disfiguring out societymaking fortresses of portions of our cities and dividing our people into armed camps.

It is jeopardizing to some of our most precious institutions; among them our schools and universitiespoisoning the spirit of trust and cooperation that is essential to their proper functioning. In the past years until now, violence among children has increased dramatically. Cases have been reported where grade school students take guns and other weapons to school and use them against their teachers and classmates. Things of that sort are very much a reality for schools around the country. Is the reason for these acts of violence that children are becoming more aggressive at younger ages?

Does, the media have to do something with the increase in violence of young children, the fact that the media has more violence in it than any other point in history? It could be a combination of things, including work, single parents, peer pressures, etc. The true concern is that the media entertains children with violent shows, which are aimed at them. Some networks agreed to place advisories warning before and the prime-time television programs which they determined as violent (Molitor & Hirsch, 1994).

The problem here is that the networks decide what violence is and what is not. The purpose of this study is to establish a guideline as to what is enough violence for a child to watch without increasing their aggression. The hypothesis at stake is that males will be more significantly aggressive that females and the females that are exposed to different levels of television violence will show different levels of aggression. Most people look at television as an entertaining and education ional way of spending time.

Some believe though there is currently too much violence in television and that it is influencing our young into becoming aggressive in nature and tolerant to violence. Children’s viewing of violent TV shows, their identification with aggressive same-sex TV characters, and their perceptions that TV violence is realistic, are all linked to later aggression as young adults for both males and females. These findings hold true for any child from any family, regardless of the child’s education or occupation, their parents’ aggressiveness, or the mother and father’s parenting style.

The age in which television violence starts to affect children is when they are 3 years old. Just as soon as they reach their mid-teens they will have seen thousands of violent incidents and deaths in cartoons and with real people according to research. However, these finding are restricting since if these studies had chosen two different age groups, the results would have told us more about the effect of television, videotape and videogame reduced exposure across different age groups.

To begin our experiment, we must first define what aggression is. Aggression is the first attack, or act of hostility; the first act of injury, or first act leading to a war or a controversy; unprovoked attack; assault; as, a war of aggression. “Aggressions of power” action. It is intended to harm someone. It can be verbal attackinsults, threats, sarcasm, or attribution nasty motives to themor a physical punishment or restriction (Scott, 1975).

What about thoughts and fantasies in which we humiliate or brutally assault our enemies? Is that aggression? What about violent dreams? Such thoughts and dreams suggest anger, of course, but are not aggression as defined earlier. While aggression is usually a result of anger (is feeling mad in response to frustration or injury), it may be “cold” and calculated, for example, the bomber pilot, the judge who sentences a criminal, the unfaithful spouse, the merchant who overprices a product, or the unemotional gang attack.

To clarify aggression, some writers have classified it according to its purpose: instrumental aggression (to get some reward, not to get revenge), hostile aggression (to hurt someone to get revenge), and annoyance aggression (to stop an irritant). When our aggression becomes so extreme that we lose self-control, it is said that we are in a rage (Berkowitz,1993). Aggression must be distinguished from assertiveness, which is tactfully and rationally standing up for your won rights; indeed, assertiveness is designed not to hurt others.

There can be internal and external reasons for aggression. An internal cause of aggression can be testosterone. External cause of aggression can be ones physical environment, individual characteristics and it can even be caused by some drugs. Psychologists have learned by experiments that by the age of three, boys wrestle, hit, kick, tussle, push, and pull far more than girls do (Boyatzis& Maitllo, 1995). Aggression is clearly an antisocial behavior to most women, and many mothers of boys sense that psychologists blame them for their son’s behavior.

But research now shows that mothers are equally intolerant of aggression in sons and daughters and they use the same verbal reprimands and punishment for both. This is part of a bigger picture that suggests that mothers are relatively sex-blind when it comes to raising their children (Fox, 1977). Should we conclude, then, that boys are born violent? Genes may explain the sex difference in rates of aggression, but the distinct pattern that characterizes men’s aggression is acquired from a culture that rationalizes and even glorifies male violence.

Boys are not simply more aggressive than girls; they are aggressive in a different way. They fight to take possession of toys and territory, to compete and win socially, to be recognized as though guys. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of different levels of television violence on grade school children. Since some studies show that younger children are more prone to aggression than older children (Surbeck & Endsley, 1979; Ridley-Johnson, Surdy, & O’Laughlin. 1991). This study is designed to show how violence plays a role in aggression.

The intention is to show that violence causes different aggression levels between males and females. The second purpose of this study is to show if there are any significant differences between males and females and aggression induced by violence. The information on gender difference and aggression is controversial. Some studies indicate that there were no true significant differences in aggression for females (Bartholow & Anderson, 2002). The results expected are different in gender and their levels of aggression with in different levels of T. V. violence.

Violence in the Media

Monkey see, monkey do has become a well-known saying in todays modern, media warped society, but is it correct? What has the world come to these days? It often seems like everywhere one looks, violence rears its ugly head. We see it in the streets, back alleys, school, and even at home. The last of these, our homes, is a major source of violence. In many peoples’ living rooms there sits an outlet for violence that often goes unnoticed. It is the television, and the people who view it are often pulled into its realistic world of violence scenes with sometimes devastating results.

Much research has gone into showing why our society is so mesmerized by this big glowing box and the action that takes place within it. Only a mere sixty years ago the invention of the television was viewed as a technological breakthrough with black and white ghost-like figures on a screen so small, hardly anyone could see them. Today that curiosity has become a constant companion to 90% of the American population (Sherrow 26), mainly, children and teenagers. From reporting the news and advertising in order to persuade us to buy certain products, to providing programs that depict violence, television has all but replaced written material.

Unfortunately, it is these violent programs that are endangering our present-day society. Violent images on television, as well as in the movies, have inspired people to set spouses on fire in their beds, lie down in the middle of highways, extort money by placing bombs in airplanes, rape, steal, murder, and commit numerous other shootings and assaults. (Brown 78) Most of what is broadcast or transmitted even in the news today is with reference to the chaotic condition of our planet, or something else that society as a whole sees as detrimental or damaging.

The average American child will witness… 200,000 acts of media violence by the time that child graduates from high school. (Sherrow 6) Children have never been very good at listening to their elders, James Baldwin wrote in Nobody Knows my Name. But they have never failed to imitate them. (Sherrow 56) This basic truth has all but disappeared as the public increasingly treats teenagers as a robot-like population under sway of an exploitative media.

White House officials lecture film, music, Internet, fashion, and pop-culture moguls and accuse them of programming kids to smoke, drink, shoot up, have sex, and kill. A recent report from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) pools evidence from over 2,500 studies within the last decade on over 100,000 subjects from several nations to show that the compiled evidence of the medias influence on behavior is so overwhelming that there is a consensus in the research community that violence in the media does lead to aggressive behavior (Methvin 49).

Given that the majority of scientific community agrees that the research findings of the NIMH publication support conclusion of a causal relationship between television violence and aggressive behavior (Wurtzel 21), why is it that the Saturday morning cartoons are the most violent time slot on television? (Methvin 49) And that despite slight variations over the past decade, the amount of violence in the media has remained at consistently high levels (Wurtzel 23).

Despite the negative effects media violence has been known to generate, no drastic changes have been made to deal with this problem that seems to be getting worse. We, as a whole, have glorified this violence so much that movies such as Natural Born Killers and television shows such as Mighty Morphin Power Rangers are viewed as normal, everyday entertainment. Its even rare now to find a childrens cartoon that does not depict some type of violence or comedic aggression. It is this aggression that is rubbing off on our society, and it is this aggression that we are trying to hide.

Why is it that like the tobacco companies twenty years ago, the present day television broadcasting companies refuse to consent that violent films and programming can and do have harmful effects on their viewers (Rowland 280) What can be done to combat the stubborn minded broadcasting companies and to reduce the amount of violent scenes that infest every aspect of our senses? The media giants of today, such as ABC, CBS, and NBC continue to air violent shows, because they make money off of these programs.

In general, society finds scenes of violence simply exciting (Feshbach 12). Broadcasting companies argue that based on the high ratings, they are giving the public what it wants, and therefore are serving the public interest (Feshbach 34). Michael Howe states: We have to remember that children and adults do enjoy and do choose to watch and listen to those programs and music that contain violence (48). At the same time, however, we must also remember the undeniable truth that there is clear evidence between television violence and later aggressive behavior (Palmer 120).

Because violent media has been proven time and time again to play an active role toward inciting hostile behavior in children, the level of combative programming and movies must be reduced. The media argument that high ratings correspond with the public’s best interest is simply not valid. Even the American Medical Association agrees that the link between media violence and later aggressive behavior warrants a major organized cry of protest from the medical profession (Palmer 122). The issue of the public’s infatuation with Media can be paralleled with that of a young child and his desire for candy and junk foods.

The child enjoys eating such foods, though they produce the harmful effects of rotting away at his teeth. With a parent to limit his intake of such harmful sweets, however, the child is protected from their damage. Similarly, the American public desires to view violent programs at the risk of adapting induced aggressive behaviors. Because the networks refuse to act as a mother, and to limit the amount of violence shown on television, there are no restrictions to prevent television’s violent candy from rotting away at the teeth of society.

Harry Skornia claims that it is naive and romantic to expect a corporation to have either a heart of a soul in the struggle for profits and survival (34). But who, then, is to take responsibility for the media’s actions if not the industry itself? Because there has not been any sufficient answers to this question so far, Media violence has not diminished greatly; nor have Saturday morning programs for children, marked by excessively violent cartoons, changed much for the better (Cullingford 61).

One may ask: Why can’t the government or the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) intervene to control the amount of violent programming that currently circulates during most broadcasting hours? Edward Palmer states: The FCC’s reluctance to regulate – especially directly about violent content – is consistent with that of many other groups. Because the First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press, no direct censorship os programming has ever been advocated by responsible groups concerned with the problem of television violence (124).

The American Broadcasting Company (ABC) holds fast to its claim that there are no scientific findings that show a link between television violence and unusually violent behavior in children (Rowland 279). The network executives at ABC express the ideals that they are self-confident about the lack of both a serious case against them and of any sincere willingness by Congress to pursue beyond the heat of rhetoric the matters of broadcasting profitability and commercial purpose (Rowland 280).

One can derive from this statement that the networks are clearly not worried about any form of government intervention or even the slightest bit concerned about the barrage of scientific data that correlates violent television and hostility among children. Because of the First Amendment to the Constitution, the government and the FCC are rendered virtually ineffective in the pursuit of limiting the current amount of violence on television and movies. Public action is the only other option if society wishes to create a stronger programming schedule for today’s children.

Several organizations such as the National Parents and Teachers Association (PTA) and the American Medical Association (AMA) have urged their members to lobby public force against advertisers on high-violence programs and movies (Methvin 53). The public must dictate its feelings by not lending support to those companies that advertise during violent television shows. The viewer has a right to declare that he is not going to help pay for those programs by buying the advertised products or going to the movies (Methvin 52).

To aid public, The National Coalition on Television Violence (NCTV) publishes quarterly lists of the companies and products that sponsor the most mayhem, and also companies that allot the largest portion of their budgets to violent programming (Methvin 53). Public boycott of companies who advertise on violent programs seems to be the only way to inform the networks and syndicators that a public health problem exists with which they must deal (Methvin 21).

Michael Howe claims that over many years, little more than lip service has been paid by the television networks to the expressed need to protect children from the injurious influences (Chaffee 09). History shows too, that cries of protest, even when accompanied by rigorous data, have had little influence on the media industry in the past (Palmer 177). A public boycott of violent programming, lyrics, and movies apparently, is the only way to make the production staff accept media violence first and foremost as potentially damaging, rather than regarding it principally as potential entertainment (Belson 527).

Only when the public is able to change the current attitudes of the media on the topic of aggression and television, can a plan to engender more beneficial and useful forms of television content be implemented (Brown 259). Despite the continuously mounting evidence that violent media has harmful effects on its young viewers, the three major broadcasting companies, ABC, CBS, and NBC, refuse to acknowledge these findings. One may find it ironic that out of over 2,500 reports on television violence, only seven do not indicate a link between the violence on the screen and aggressive behavior in young children (Chaffee 33).

Even more ironic is the fact that one such report was heavily funded by The National Broadcasting Network (NBC). The NBC funded report claims that their study did not find any evidence that, over the time periods studied, television was causally implicated in the development of aggressive behavior patterns among children and adolescents (Milavsky 489). In a CBS study, the network succeeded in reducing the amount of violence reported by excluding a significant (and unreported) amount of violent representation (Chaffee 33).

Studies by the large networks can easily be rigged to present values to support the broadcasters’ hypothesis that media aggression does not influence violent behavior by changing the definition of what constitutes a violent act. The network studies only count the use of force against persons or animals ,or the articulated, explicit threat of physical force to compel particular behavior on the part of a person (Wurtzel 27). Unlike the NIMH study, the network program did not include violence from comedy and slapstick, accidents and acts of nature such as floods, earthquakes, and hurricanes (Wurtzel 27).

By excluding certain types of violence, the broadcasters are able to manipulate their data to support the conclusion that media violence does not incite hostile behavior in children. The big media giants cannot be trusted to present accurate surveys of violence, because evidence shows that their findings are the result of loaded statistics and data. The current networks stand, stubborn and deaf, to the cries of the American Medical Association, suggestions by the Federal Communications Commission, and the concerns of other public organizations.

The networks do not wish to alter their present displays of violence, because they fear financial losses and economic decline. To force the media to acknowledge public opinion against aggressive television programming, society must create financial distress for the television networks and force them to recognize the harmful effects of televised hostility on children. Only when the broadcasters and producers of violent programming admit and realize the damaging results of violence on society and our children will significant improvements be made to generate productive and imaginative entertainment.

Violence and Gaming

The current use of gaming as an alternative form of making money on reservations may have negative effects on tribal communities. For instance, many who oppose gaming say that casinos are also a factor with crime. In addition, the issue of gaming itself is an occasional source of conflict among tribe members, conflict that in the past has erupted into violence between other people. This conflict involves concern over the impact gaming might have upon Indians. Some people are worried that the Indians money is not being handled very well.

Things that have taken place in the Elem Indian Colony in Lake County, California increase the possibility of violence on reservations that have casinos. For many tribes, gaming is a chance for other sorts of income in the face of losing money, the traditional source of cash on most reservations where natural resources are not very likely and lack of funds discourages private investment. The implications of partial sovereignty allotted to reservation Indians were initially realized in 1979 when the Seminoles opened the first high-stakes bingo hall on a Florida reservation.

Following a series of trials favoring gaming on reservations, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 caused the present situation of Indian gambling initiatives. According to the National Indian Gaming Commission, approximately one third of federally recognized Indian tribes in the US have negotiated agreements to run casinos, over a hundred of which are currently at work. These casinos, along with other gambling operations, generated close to $4 billion in gross revenues last year.

While gaming has produced a lot of money for a number of tribes as well as the communities surrounding their reservations, it has caused other effects as well. First, some have claimed that gaming results in increased crime. Second, there have been several instances of intratribal violence linked to disagreements of gaming. Even without gaming, reservations experience crime rates significantly higher than the national averages. In one of many, 15. 4 homicides are reported among every 100,000 Native Americans every year, where only 9 homicides occur for every 100,000 US residents in general.

Whether crime rates such as this have increased since the era of gaming began is presently being debated. A 1992 study of the effects of casinos on one Lower Sioux reservation in Minnesota suggests that crime – including drug use and domestic violence – increased significantly after gaming started. One such person is Genevieve Jackson, a council member of Shiprock Navajo reservation in Arizona, who claims that casinos are associated with “increased family violence and child abuse.

Others worry about the possibility of violent theft of cash-carrying gamblers, while still others fear organized crime activity. In California, at least two tribal leaders have been murdered after claiming that Indians were not receiving a fair share of profits from casinos run with the help of outsiders. Nevertheless, many disagree that gambling is tied to increased violent crime. Federal authorities that deal with crime on reservations, such as the FBI and US attorneys, have reported no increase in violence related to casinos.

Richard Hill, Chairman of the National Indian Gaming Association (NIGA), corroborated this assessment last month when he addressed the House Judiciary Committee, asserting that tribes are actually experiencing a decrease in crime. He explained this decrease as resulting from fewer crimes being committed “which spring from poverty, unemployment, alcoholism, and despair. ” Although it might be too soon to gauge the effect gaming will have on crime in general, there have been several outstanding occasions on which the very issue of gaming itself has resulted in conflict and even bloodshed among tribe members.

Over the years, both violent and nonviolent confrontations have been attributed to factional disputes concerning the existence and/or implementation of gaming on reservations from New York to North Carolina to Arizona. An example of violence occurred at the beginning of October 1992 in California, less than one hundred miles north of San Francisco. In 1992, violence exploded at Clear Lake’s Elem Pomo Indian Community between two disputing tribes. Chairman Thomas Brown’s control of the reservation’s two casinos.

Over the following six days, 10 residents were wounded in gun battles while nearly 70 others fled the ranch to escape the violence. The conflict arose from a lawsuit filed in March accusing Brown of embezzling money from one of the ranch’s casinos. On October 13,1992 the same day law enforcement officials achieved a cease-fire between the warring factions, the NIGA decreed the closing of both casinos. This episode in California is one of the most recent in a series of gambling-related confrontations on the nation’s reservations.

Earlier that year, three men were killed in a shoot-out at a Seneca reservation in New York during a power struggle believed by many to have been exacerbated by the presence of casinos. New York is also home to the St. Regis Mohawk reservation where, in 1990, two men were killed in gunfights during a “civil war” between two different gaming reservations. In an attempt on a Cherokee Reservation in North Carolina, the Tribal Council refused to hold a referendum on whether to allow a proposed casino despite the existence of a petition requesting one signed by 70 percent of the registered voters.

As with other gaming-linked violence, federal officials have been quick to dismiss occurrences of armed intratribal confrontation involving casinos as rare. Following the 92 Elem disturbance, a spokesman for the National Indian Gaming Commission stated, “It’s something we haven’t really seen elsewhere. ” These sentiments are the same as those said in response to similar incidents in the past. For example, a Bureau of Indian Affairs attorney in Washington said of the St. Regis conflict: “It certainly is not a reflection of Indian gambling in general.

Current legislation and court decisions leave regulation of reservation gaming to tribe members themselves. Local and state authorities can enter intratribal confrontations only after shots have been fired, and the federal government must wait until violence has occurred or a suit has been filed. Therefore, as suspicions of corruption within tribal organizations and over traditions continue to surface, the reservation must develop new ways of dealing with problems concerning any conflict.

In conclusion, I would have to say that the violence on these has been a problem in the past, but I hope they are through. Native Americans have had to fight all their lives for what they believe in, I hope that it doesnt continue because Native Americans, in my opinion are one of the most pure races we have left in our society. It seems as if all they have done since theyve been in America is give. With casinos they have benefited just about everyone as far as jobs and a source of entertainment.

Gangs and Violence

Gangs are a violent reality that people have to deal with in today’s cities. What has made these groups come about? Why do kids feel that being in a gang is both an acceptable and prestigious way to live? The long range answer to these questions can only be speculated upon, but in the short term the answers are much easier to find. On the surface, gangs are a direct result of human beings’ personal wants and peer pressure. To determine how to effectively end gang violence we must find the way that these morals are given to the individual. Unfortunately, these can only be hypothesized.

However, by looking at the way humans are influenced in society, I believe there is good evidence to point the blame at several institutions. These include the forces of the media, the government, theatre, drugs and our economic system. On the surface, gangs are caused by peer pressure and greed. Many teens in gangs will pressure peers into becoming part of a gang by making it all sound glamorous. Money is also an crucial factor. A kid (a 6-10 year old, who is not yet a member) is shown that s/he could make $200 to $400 for small part time gang jobs.

Although these are important factors they are not strong enough to make kids do things that are strongly against their morals. One of the ways that kids morals are bent so that gang violence becomes more acceptable is the influence of television and movies. The average child spends more time at a TV than she/he spends in a classroom. Since nobody can completely turn off their minds, kids must be learning something while watching the TV. Very few hours of television watched by children are educational, so other ideas are being absorbed during this period of time.

Many shows on television today are extremely violent and are often shown this from a gang’s perspective. A normal adult can see that this is showing how foully that gangs are living. However, to a child this portrays a violent gang existance as acceptable. ‘The Ends Justifies the Means’ mentality is also taught through many shows where the “goody guy” captures the “bad guy” through violence and is then being commended. A young child sees this a perfectly acceptable because he knows that the “bad guy” was wrong but has no idea of what acceptable apprehension techniques are.

Gore in television also takes a big part in influencing young minds. Children see gory scenes and are fascinated by these things that they have not seen before. Older viewers see gore and are not concerned with the blood but rather with the pain the victim must feel. A younger mind doesn’t make this connection. Thus a gore fascination is formed, and has been seen in several of my peers. Unfortunately kids raised with this sort of television end up growing up with a stronger propensity to becoming a violent gang member or ‘violent- acceptant’ person.

Gangs bring the delinquent norms of society into intimate contact with the individual. “1, (Marshall B Clinard, 1963). So, as you can see if TV leads a child to believe that violence is the norm this will manifest itself in the actions of the child quite, often in a gang situation. This is especially the case when parents don’t spend a lot of time with their kids at the TV explaining what is right and what is wrong. Quite often newer books and some types of music will enforce this type of thought and ideas.

Once this mentality is installed in youngsters they become increasingly prone to being easily pushed into a gang situation by any problem at home or elsewhere. For instance, in poor families with many children or upper-middle class families where parents are always working, the children will often feel deprived of love. Parents can often feel that putting food on the table is enough love. Children of these families may often go to the gang firstly out of boredom and to belong somewhere. As time goes on, a form of love or kinship develops between the gang members and the child.

It is then that the bond between the kid and the gang is completed because the gang has effectively taken the place of the family. The new anti social structure of cities also effects the ease in which a boy/girl can join a gang. ” The formation of gangs in cities, and most recently in suburbs, is facilitated by the same lack of community among parents. The parents do not know what their children are doing for two reasons: First, much of the parents’ lives is outside the local community, while the children’s lives are lived almost totally within it.

Second, in a fully developed community, the network of relations gives every parent, in a sense, a community of sentries who can keep him informed of his child’s activities. In modern living-places (city or suburban), where such a network is attenuated, he no longer has such sentries. “2, (Merton Nisbet, 1971). In male gangs problems occur as each is the members tries to be the most manly. This often leads to all members participating in “one-up-manship”. Quite often this will then lead to each member trying to commit a bigger and more violent crime or simply more crimes than the others.

With all members participating in this sort of activity it makes for a never ending unorganized violence spree (A sort of Clockwork Orange mentality). In gangs with more intellegent members these feelings end up making each member want to be the star when the groups commit a crime. This makes the gang much more organized and improves the morale of members which in turn makes them more dangerous and very hard for the police to deal with and catch (There is nothing harder to find and deal with than organized teens that are dedicated to the group).

This sort of gang is usually common of middle or upper class people although it can happen in gangs in the projects and other low rent districts too. This “one-up-manship” is often the reason between rival gangs fighting. All gangs feel powerful and they want to be feared. To do this they try to establish themselves as the only gang in a certain neighborhood. After a few gang fights hatred forms and gang murders and drive-by’s begin to take place. When two gangs are at war it makes life very dangerous for citizens in the area. Less that 40% of drive-by’s kill their intended victim yet over 60% do kill someone.

This gang application is one of the many reasons that sexual sterotypes and pressure to conform to the same must be stopped. Lastly one of the great factors in joining a gang is for protection. Although from an objective point of view, we can see joining a gang brings more danger than it saves you from, this is not always the way it is seen by kids. In slums such as the Bronx or the very worst case, Compton, children will no doubt be beaten and robbed if they do not join a gang. Of course they can probably get the same treatment from rivals when in a gang.

The gang also provides some money for these children who quite often need to feed their families. The reason kids think that the gang will keep them safe is from propoganda from the gangs. Gang members will say that no one will get hurt and make a public show of revenge if a member is hurt or killed. People in low rent areas are most often being repressed due to poverty and most importantly, race. This often results in an attitude that motivates the person to base his/her life on doing what the system that oppresses them doesn’t want.

Although this accomplishes little it is a big factor in gang enrollment. So, as you have seen gangs are a product of the environment we have created for ourselves. Some of these factors include: oppression, the media, greed, violence and other gangs. There seems to be no way to end the problem of gangs without totally restructuring the modern economy and value system. Since the chance of this happening is minimal, we must learn to cope with gangs and try to keep their following to a minimum. Unfortunately there is no real organized force to help fight gangs.

Violence on television Cause Aggressive Behavior

An 18-year-old boy locks himself in his room, mesmerized for hours by the corpse-filled video game Doom, while shock-rocker Marilyn Manson screams obscenities from the stereo. Shelved nearby are a video collection, including the graphically violent film Natural Born Killers, and a diary, replicating the unrestrained expressions of hate and death, published on the boy’s personal website. Should this boy’s media preferences be cause for alarm? The question is not new, but the April 20,1999 massacre of 12 students and a teacher by fellow Columbine High students Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold has added urgency to the search for answers.

The Littleton, Colorado teenagers reportedly immersed themselves in the same media described above, even producing and starring in their own murderous video before gunning down their classmates, and apparently taking their own lives. We live in a world of violence — Kosovo, Bosnia, the West Bank, and abortion clinics. The value of human life has reduced to, simply, a few vital organs in a hollow body. Life is no longer viewed as the sacred and amazing gift that it is. Human life is now only a temporary, useful commodity. And, when it is no longer useful? Well, it can be thrown away, like used Kleenex.

This irreverence for life has been a result of numerous hours of senseless violence society feeds into their brains every day. Yet, media representatives defend the entertainment industry, denying any direct link between violent media and violent behavior. In many peoples’ living rooms, there sits an outlet for violence that often goes unnoticed. It is the television. The children who view it are often pulled into its realistic world of violent scenes with sometimes devastating results. Much effort has gone into showing why this glowing box, and the action that takes place within it, mesmerizes children.

Research shows that it is definitely a major source of violent behavior in children. The statistics prove time and time again that aggression and television viewing do go hand in hand. Research shows the truth about television violence and children. Some are trying to fight this problem, while others are ignoring it, hoping it will go away with yesterdays trash. Still, others do not even seem to care. However, the facts are undeniable. The experiments carried out, all point to one conclusion: television violence causes children to be violent, and the effects can be life-long.

Here is the scene: Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, and a well-armed Elmer Fudd are having a standoff in the forest. Daffy, the ratfink has just exposed Bugs latest disguise. Bugs then, takes off the costume and says, “Thats right, Doc, Im a wabbit. Would you like to shoot me now or wait until we get home? ” “Shoot him now! Shoot him now! ” Daffy screams, “You keep out of this,” Bugs says, “he doesnt have to shoot you now. ” “He does so have to shoot me now! ” says Daffy. Full of wrath, he storms up to Elmer Fudd and shrieks, “And I demand that you shoot me now!

This is an example of the violence on television that “experts” speak. One study done by Feshbach and R. D. Singer (1971), suggested that watching television actually decreases the amount of aggression in the viewer. The experiment supposedly proved that the violence on television allows the viewer to relate with the characters involved in the violent act. In doing so, the viewer is able to release all aggressive thoughts and feelings through that relation, causing them to be less aggressive than they would have been without watching the violent television.

This is like saying, for example, that a medical student, in his final years at Harvard Medical School, would simply give up studies and say, “Oh, well, whats the point in going to school to be a doctor, when I can simply watch General Hospital and get the same satisfaction. ” This of course is absurd, as are the above theologies. These experiments do not live up to good, empirical research. If one were to ask a child what their favorite television show is, very often the child would respond with a television show that contains a lot of violence.

For example, “The Mighty Morphine Power Rangers” and “The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” seem to have become role models worthy of imitation by children. One simply has to walk through a playground during recess, to see these children portraying their favorite violent characters. This aggressive behavior is further demonstrated in classrooms and in the home. Playing “make believe” is really a demonstration of aggressive behavior, because of watching violence on television. Many studies done, suggest that violence on television does influence the behavior of children.

When viewed individually, these studies might seem insignificant, but together they form a powerful giant that indicates aggressive behavior is a result of violence on television. Children are sponges during their beginning years, and soak up their surroundings. A study done by Albert Bandura (1963) , demonstrates how easily viewing aggression can influence a child. He and his colleagues observed preschoolers in a contrived situation, which included aggressive behavior. His study consisted of four groups.

A control group set up for this experiment, contained children who had not witnessed any events involving a Bobo doll, a toy clown. The other three groups had witnessed Bobo being verbally and/or physically abused by different figures. These figures included a live model, a filmed model, and a female dressed in a cat costume. All the children had been irritated, by taking away their toys. This made the children more prone to use aggressive behavior. The children were than put in a playroom with the Bobo doll. Out of the four groups that were involved, three exemplified aggressive behavior toward the Bobo doll.

The exception was the control group that had not witnessed any violence. This experiment supports the theory that after observing violent behavior, children are more likely to imitate the aggressive acts of the characters involved. In addition, a study conducted, demonstrated how children become desensitized to violence. Divided into two groups were forty-four boys and girls, in third and fourth grade. One group saw a violent western movie, and the other group did not see any movie. Afterwards, the children were asked to “baby-sit” two younger children by watching them on television.

The two children on the television became progressively violent toward each other, and this is where the experiment gets interesting. Researchers found the children who had seen the western movie waited longer to get an adult to help the two violent children, than did the children who had not seen a movie. This suggests that the children who had been predisposed to violent behavior, accepted the behavior they witnessed between the two children they were baby-sitting, as more “normal. ” Think of a large tub filled with steaming, hot water. If you tried to jump in all at once, it would be unbearable and you would get out quickly.

We have learned to start out slow, dip only our toe in, until we have slowly submerged our entire body. We become desensitized to the hot water, by slowly exposing our sensitive body to the water a little bit, slowly, over a long period. This type of desensitization shows in society today. Every night on the news, we are plagued with horrible pictures and gruesome stories of violence and terror, but we rarely become shocked by any of it. This could very well be because exposure to so much violence on television in the past, especially during childhood, has caused us to be immune to this disease.

Children who witnessed violence may then come away from the experience thinking that violence is acceptable, and they may be more likely to re-enact televised situations in the future. The other side may say that effects on childrens behavior are limited and temporary, but there is strong evidence supporting quite the opposite. Studies done by the top networks on television, demonstrate the negative, long range, effects excessive television watching has had on children, by citing how they behave as adolescents.

Just as a baby robin observes its mother to learn how to fly, children copy the actions of their favorite television character. Children emulate these “heroes” as a result of this admiration. By viewing violent television programs as real and acceptable, children are extremely likely to re-enact violence in their own lives. Unfortunately, society seems to condone these aggressive characteristics, which further confuses children. Until regulations ban these violent programs, children will continue receiving negative influence and eventually, “fall from the nest. ”

Television is not the sole factor in causing aggression; there are many factors. However, television is one of the greatest factors that cause aggressive behavior in children. A violent home, that includes two parents fighting twenty-four hours a day, can influence a child’s behavior. If a child is constantly beat with scenes of aggression between adults, that are his/her role models, then he/she may also exhibit aggressive behavior. Children can witness violence in many places besides television. A child can witness an argument between two people in a public place, and then re-enact the scene at home.

Even in a simple supermarket parking lot, violence is evident. Two adults fighting over a parking place could be violent towards one another. All of these instances could affect a child’s behavior and cause them to act aggressively. None of the actions that the child witnessed was on a television screen. The Social Learning theory is the main argument for the side arguing that violence on television leads to aggression in children. The social learning theory claims that children copy violent scenes from television, believing that this type of behavior is acceptable.

All people are individuals; therefore, it is difficult to characterize behavior. Obviously not every child who watches “Mighty Morphin Power Rangers” will act aggressively after the show. However, research has provided that they are likely to act in an aggressive manner. It is impossible to ignore the enormous mountain of data supporting television leading to violence. Violence on television can create aggressive behavior. Fixing the problems of children and television violence is not easy. They are many factors to consider and people to convince.

This raging fire will, no doubt, never go away and continue to grow as the years go by. However, there are measures that can be taken to prevent the children from ever being exposed to such things. The entertainment industry should be held accountable for the images they choose to air. Our government needs to pass stricter regulations and harsher censorship on the content, shown on television and movies. After all, what is the world going to be like when the people, who are now children, are running the world?

Domestic Violence and Women

Throughout history many women have been victims of domestic violence. Society considered men to be superior to women because men were always in power economically, legally, and religiously. This gave men the attitude that women were inferior to them. Men harm their wives by beating them physically and abusing them emotionally. Many of these women did not report the abuse that they got from their spouses and families because they thought that no one would believe them.

By becoming informed with the causes, effects, and treatments of domestic violence towards women in the United States, we can then contain the amages that are done to women or at least get the message across to other women that there is help to overcome this tragic display of affection. Domestic violence is defined broadly as violent acts carried out by persons in a marital, sexual, parental, or care-giving role toward others in reciprocal roles. Spousal abuse may apply to couples engaged in a sexual relationship outside of marriage.

And child abuse may be penetrated by parents, siblings, step-parents, or live-in boyfriends or girlfriends of the abused child`s parent (Rosen 3). Battered women re defined as women that have been Victora 2 physically or emotionally abused by their husbands or families. These women suffer from many different types of domestic violence but the cause is just one abuse. Abuse happens to many women but most of the time it is not reported to the police.

Abuse is an underreported crime, it is underreported for two reasons: a) it occurs in the privacy of one`s home where there are typically no witnesses aside from family member`s to detect and report it and b) though violence is by no means restricted to the lower lasses, middle- and upper class violence is likely to go unreported to the police (Stets 3). Why it is not reported to the police could be the result of the emotions that are building up inside the victim`s head. These women feel apprehensive in reporting the abuse because they are scared of what the abuser will do to them.

They were afraid because if he found out that they called the police he might hurt them or their children even more than he already did. The lower class violence is usually reported because they deal with social services more often than the middle and upper classes do. They are more educated in knowing that public social control agencies can help them get through the abuse. The middle and upper classes do not usually report these acts of violence because they probably can afford a psychiatrists or a marriage counselor. Abusive behavior begins in cycles and not everyday occurrences.

This abusive cycle is called the battering cycle and it contains three phases. The first phase is the tension-building phase, the second phase is the explosion or acute 3 battering incident phase, and the third phase is the calm, loving phase. The first phase is when the woman notices the man building tension and becoming very edgy which causes minor violent episodes. Then the second phase begins when that tension builds up higher and the man explodes in anger or in a blind rage that revolves into a severe violent incident. And the third and final phase is when the man apologizes and tries to win the woman back by showering her with gifts.

The abuse that women obtain towards them can be experienced with various types of violence. Those types of violence can be anything from a minor push or shove o something major such as threatening with a weapon. In the past, spousal abuse has been treated as a fairly simple set of violent behaviors. The five most common types of domestic or spousal violence are: 1) when a woman is thrown against an object, 2) when she is hit with the man`s open hand or fist, 3) when she is pushed or shaken roughly, 4) when she is hit with an object and the 5) and most deadly of all is when a woman is threatened with a weapon (Rhodes 32).

The causes of domestic violence towards women in the United States are many but he best known and lucid are the male gender attitudes of being number one. Men have the idea that women are worthless and inferior to them. This concept degenerates women to a lower class or form of life that can not allow men to see women as their equals. According to Violence Hits Home, Karen Rosen reported that men who abuse their spouses tend to have more 4 traditional gender-role orientation than do non-batterers. She also suggests those abusive men tend to be more controlling, dominating, and aggressive in order to get their needs met (85).

These men also believe that their abuse will help them to maintain power in their families. Rosen also found out that witnessing marital violence as a child was consistently related to abuse in adult relationships in other words Being a member of a violent family is how each generation learns to be violent ( 85 ). When a child is exposed to everyday acts of domestic violence then that child is brought up to believe that domestic violence is acceptable and can be done to their own spouses. Some men also abuse their wives in an act of jealousy, anger, and aggression or poor impulse control.

Men usually tend to abuse women more often when the women involved are not their wives. Batterers are more likely to be violent in non-family situations than men that are married and do not batter their wives. According to Sandra Stith, a researcher of the causes for domestic violence, Abusers were more likely than non-abusers to believe that wife-beating is not only justified but acceptable ( 86 ). This belief that violence is justified to maintain power may explain why men may choose not to control their anger and frustrations. In an abusive man`s eyes violence is not only justified but also acceptable.

The Genetics of Violence

We, in the 1990s, are slowly and inevitably being faced with the sociological and biological implications of impending genetic power. This power is analytical, in such cases as the Human Genome Project, which will hopefully succeed in mapping out the genetic code for the entire human genetic composition. Moreover, this power is preventative and participatory in that it can be, and is being, used to control the behavior of humans and other animals.

This new power, in the eyes of many, is as risky and potentially hazardous as atomic energy: it must be treated carefully, used under close supervision, performed under rofessional consent and observation, otherwise, people will begin to see this new genetic power as a dangerous drawback, rather than an advancement of human culture. One of the most highly contested and objectionable topics of genetic power is the analysis of crime, violence, and impulsivity.

Doubtless, most will agree that children are not born with a natural affinity for violence and crime; yet, new genetic studies are beginning down a long road of finding the hereditary basis for impulsivity. While these studies continue to search for the genetic source of aggression, child testing programs, drug manufacturers, civil ights activists, lawyers, and anxious citizens await the resulting testimony of the scientists.

The social implications of the genetic search for aggressive tendency is seen by some as a great step forward, by others as a dangerous power with the ability to give birth to another Holocaust, and by still others as racist. At one time, it was believed that ones character could be determined from the bumps in ones skull. Much later, in the 1960s, as science marched on in its regular pace, it was theorized that carriers of an extra Y (male) chromosome were predisposed to criminality.

Today, we are faced with the power o determine and alter ones character through genetics. We must collectively decide whether the ultimate price, not of money but of natural evolution, is worth the ultimate result. Behavioral Genetics and Aggression One day in 1978 a woman entered the University Hospital of Nijmegen, the Netherlands, with complaints regarding the men in her family. Many of the men seemed to have some sort of mental debility, including her brothers and her son.

In time, a pattern of strange behavior of the men emerged: one had raped his sister, and, upon being institutionalized, stabbed a warden in the chest with a itchfork; another tried to run over his boss in an automobile after he had criticized the mans work; a third had a regular habit of making his sisters undress at knife point, and two more were convicted arsonists. Additionally, the known IQs of the men were typically around 85. The history of this sort of behavior was found to be typical, as nine other males in the family, tracing back to 1870, had the same type of disorder.

It became evident that there was something wrong in the lineage of the family. Hans Brunner, a geneticist at the University Hospital, has been studying the family since 1988. It was discovered that the men had a defect on the X chromosome that helps regulate aggressive behavior. Brunner was cued to the fact that the defect was on the X chromosome because the trait was passed on from mother to son, and none of the women, with two X chromosomes, were afflicted.

The gene normally codes for the production of the enzyme monoamine oxidase A (MAOA), which breaks down three important neurotransmitters that trigger or inhibit the transmission of nerve impulses. One of these neurotransmitters is norepinephrine, which raises blood pressure and increases alertness as part of the bodys “fight or light” mechanism. Brunner believes that the lack of this neurotransmitter could cause an excess of chemical messages to the brain, in times of stress, causing the victims fury.

The mens urine found extremely low levels of the breakdown products of the three neurotransmitters, which are the breakdown products after MAOA has done its work. Another of the chemicals is serotonin, which inhibits the effects of spontaneous neuronal firing, and consequently exerts a calming effect. The lack of this inhibitor is held responsible for the “Jekyll and Hyde” personalities of the afflicted men, and may be responsible for their low IQs. Over the course of four years, Brunner was the first to ever link and pinpoint a single gene to aggression.

Also, he analyzed the X chromosomes of 28 members of the family, compiling sufficient evidence to prove his discovery. However, Brunner never studied the influence of a shared environment on the men. Many other factors of genetic and biochemical signals have been shown to greatly influence behavior. In humans, impulsive aggression has been linked to low concentrations of a chemical known as 5-HIAA in the cerebrospinal fluid. Scientists have found a human gene which lies on chromosome 6 that creates a 25 ercent higher susceptibility to schizophrenia.

Also, MAOA has been found responsible for REM sleep deprivation in rats, which increases the incidence of fighting among the animals. Testosterone levels in repeated sex offenders is, almost without exception, extremely high. The National Research Council (NRC) reports that female mice and rhesus monkeys which have been injected with testosterone, in utero or at birth, repeatedly show more aggression at adulthood than others of their kind. Girls exposed to androgenic steroids in utero have an increased tendency to be more aggressive than their piers, where boys njected with anti-androgenic drugs were not as aggressive as their peers.

The neurotransmitter gamma-aminobutyric acid has been shown not only to inhibit aggression, but may stimulate the brain as well. This may be the reason that the IQs of the afflicted Dutch men were so low. In any case, all of these chemicals, in a natural setting, are ultimately determined by the genetic composition of the individual, and ample evidence exists that instances of aggressive behavior and crime are closely related to genetics. However, the relation between the environment, genetics, and aggression has not yet been combined. Psychology and behavioral genetics, unfortunately, are not combined as they sensibly should be.

We know that Brunner never studied the effects of the environment on the Dutch men; yet, experimentation with animals has shown that, for example, aggressively bred mice can act non- aggressively if placed in the right social environment. Therefore, the name of “behavioral genetics” is finally beginning to live up to the literal meaning of its name through the study of social and environmental influences. Parental Aggression and Genetics While there is very little known about the combined effects of genetics nd the environment, there is much to be said about the social tendency toward violence with regard to the genetics of offspring.

For example, parents are 60 to 70 times more likely to kill their children under the age of two if they are not their genetic children. Fewer children are murdered by their stepparents as the age of the children increases, but, nonetheless, a much higher number of stepchildren are killed than genetic children. Moreover, male animals in the wild, such as mice and monkeys, often kill the offspring of their mate if the offspring is the product of another liaison.

In humans, tribal men in Venezuela nd Paraguay simply refuse to feed the children of their wives if the children are from another union, or simply demand that the children be put to death. Few conclusions can be derived from these tendencies. Certainly, in humans, the tendency to murder stepchildren can not be determined as purely genetic. One could say that the cause is primarily social, as the stepchildren are from broken families where there is likely more tension and parental hostility towards children.

Neither can animals desire to kill the offspring of their mate that are not their genetic children be explained. Whether the desire o kill non-biological offspring is based on biology, sociology, or simple emotion, this example displays the difficulty of pinning any sort of aggressive or criminal behavior to a gene. It is also an example of the difficulty of using social and genetic evidence, together, to track the source of any animal behavior. Society and Genetics In the ten leading causes of death, violence kills more children than disease.

In 1988, 8150 US children between the ages if one and fourteen; 840 of the deaths were clearly determined to be homicide; 237 were suicide. Homicide is the fourth leading cause of death for children between one and nine years old, nd in the fifteen to twenty-four age group, it is the second leading cause of death. Obviously, crime and violence do a considerable amount of damage to many American lives. Consequently, limited amounts of genetic and other biological research is being performed in order to find a genetic link, if any, to aggression resulting in violence and crime.

In 1989, $20 million in funds were dedicated to violence research; 5% of those funds were allocated to the biology of violence. There is so much conflict over the use of funds dealing with the genetics of violence that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funds no pecific studies that attempt to link genes and violence. In August of 1992, the NIH allocated $78,000 to fund a controversial conference in an effort to assess the social implications of the Human Genome Project. The support was immediately withdrawn after black political leaders and psychologists charged the conferences agenda as being racist.

The main opposition to the conference was formed by the Black Caucus, who argued that the roots of crime are based on social causes, such as poverty, racism, and unemployment, and these call on social solutions, not biological ones. Finally, in September of 1995, some 70 biologists, criminologists, istorians, and philosophers gathered at a remote conference center in the Chesapeake Bay region. It was an NIH-sponsored conference that had been carefully planned for over three years, made possible with a $133,000 from the NIH.

Some of the scientists contended that if genes mold physiology, then they must mold psychology, and thus, antisocial behavior including violent crime must have a genetic component. Others at the conference pressed that evidence for genetic linkage to crime is circumstantial and a “racist pseudoscience”. Behind the tensions that seemed to dominate the conference was the orrors of past eugenics: the early twentieth-century campaign in the United States, and later in Germany, to purify the human gene pool by sterilizing the “feeble-minded.

The leaders of the eugenics movement in the United States, although they acted out of sincere desire to build a better society, could do little when their ideas took root in Nazi Germany in the 1930s and soon became the Holocaust; this is where much genetic tension and fear stem from. One of the researchers, David Wasserman, a soft-spoken legal scholar, was shouting at the top of his lungs that, “There are a hell of a lot of people attending this onference who think the dangers of genetic research are as great in the long term as the dangers of atomic energy! Many critics argued that the genetic studies are worse than inconclusive; they are racist and dangerous as they generally fail to recognize social issues.

William Schneider, an Indiana University historian, in a formal protest statement, wrote, “Scientists as well as historians and sociologists must not allow themselves to be used to provide academic responsibility for racist pseudoscience. Flag-waving demonstrators, including self described communists, members f the Progressive Labor Party, and representatives of Support Coalition International (an alliance of psychiatric survivors endorsing a program against psychiatric medication) stormed the auditorium and seized the microphones.

A student from Rutgers University proclaimed that, “You might think that you have the right to do the research that you are doing, but the bottom line is that it will be used to subjugate people. It took two hours to clear out the protesters and another eight hours to bring the proceedings to a close.

A few researchers admitted that they needed an eye-opener to see the social mplications of behavioral genetics dealing with violence and crime, realizing that “Only historians have never had their results misused. ” Other federal research agencies have proposed a variety of monetary packages to promote this research, and it is estimated that these funded projects will cost the taxpayers as much as $50 million.

However, this is not the main concern of the opponents to this research. It is assumed that very little is, at present, known about the human mind and its tendencies. Many believe that there is an over-reliance on drugs therapy in psychiatry, and that genetic violence research is cloaking the real problem. For example, overwhelming numbers of black children with problems with violence and aggressiveness are sent to psychiatrists where they are prescribed to pacifying drugs such as Ritalin of Prozac.

Many black leaders felt that it is impossible to believe that the genetic studies are not attempting to find a link between violence and race. The conference, while ultimately displaying the publics fear of genetic assessment and engineering, made little headway in determining the course of the future of genetic research with regard to crime. It was, however, a critical step in beginning to assess the risks and concerns, along with the ositive aspects, of behavioral genetics. Conclusion Genetic research and engineering, like any other new technology, has to be carefully put to use, and in the right hands.

It seems impossible to dismiss any genetic research dealing with violence simply because it is has the possibility to become dangerous and fall into the wrong hands. Like nuclear research, genetics can be used for many positive deeds and the advancement of man. While I think that genetic research dealing with violence and genetics could have many positive aspects, it seems necessary to perform genetic research n all varieties of people: criminals, white-collar businessmen, the white-house staff and used car salesmen.

Criminals cannot be singled out as the group that needs “healing”; genetic research can ultimately benefit all people, therefore, it must be performed on a variety of people. I, like many others, with the widespread use of psychotherapeutic drugs, such as Prozac and Ritalin, fear and foresee a day when designer drugs are used by all in order to help them deal with society. This is, personally, the most frightening possibility resulting from behavioral genetic research. A time will never come when all are avid proponents of genetic engineering for the betterment of society.

People need to decide for themselves whether research should continue, and to what degree. In the end, it will be the common people who will decide the course of genetic research, not the scientists. And, in the event of genetic developments, it should not only be the personal decision of the individual as to how they will personally use the new development, but the individuals responsibility to design a solid opinion of their moral, ethical, and biological feelings regarding the employment of behavioral genetics in the future.

Analysis of Gangs

Gangs are a violent reality that people have to deal with in today’s cities. What has made these groups come about? Why do kids feel that being in a gang is both an acceptable and prestigious way to live? The long range answer to these questions can only be speculated upon, but in the short term the answers are much easier to find. On the surface, gangs are a direct result of human beings’ personal wants and peer pressure. To determine how to effectively end gang violence we must find the way that these morals are given to the individual. Unfortunately, these can only be hypothesized.

However, by looking at the way humans are influenced in society, I believe there is good evidence to point the blame at several institutions. These include the forces of the media, the government, theatre, drugs and our economic system. On the surface, gangs are caused by peer pressure and greed. Many teens in gangs will pressure peers into becoming part of a gang by making it all sound glamorous. Money is also an crucial factor. A kid (a 6-10 year old, who is not yet a member) is shown that s/he could make $200 to $400 for small part time gang jobs.

Although these are important factors they re not strong enough to make kids do things that are strongly against their morals. One of the ways that kids morals are bent so that gang violence becomes more acceptable is the influence of television and movies. The average child spends more time at a TV than she/he spends in a classroom. Since nobody can completely turn off their minds, kids must be learning something while watching the TV. Very few hours of television watched by children are educational, so other ideas are being absorbed during this period of time.

Many shows on television today are extremely violent nd are often shown this from a gang’s perspective. A normal adult can see that this is showing how foully that gangs are living. However, to a child this portrays a violent gang existance as acceptable. ‘The Ends Justifies the Means’ mentality is also taught through many shows where the “goody guy” captures the “bad guy” through violence and is then being commended. A young child sees this a perfectly acceptable because he knows that the “bad guy” was wrong but has no idea of what acceptable apprehension techniques are.

Gore in television also takes a big part in influencing young minds. Children see gory scenes and are fascinated by these things that they have not seen before. Older viewers see gore and are not concerned with the blood but rather with the pain the victim must feel. A younger mind doesn’t make this connection. Thus a gore fascination is formed, and has been seen in several of my peers. Unfortunately kids raised with this sort of television end up growing up with a stronger propensity to becoming a violent gang member or ‘violent- acceptant’ person. Gangs bring the delinquent norms of society into intimate contact with the individual. “1, (Marshall B Clinard, 963). So, as you can see if TV leads a child to believe that violence is the norm this will manifest itself in the actions of the child quite, often in a gang situation. This is especially the case when parents don’t spend a lot of time with their kids at the TV explaining what is right and what is wrong. Quite often newer books and some types of music will enforce this type of thought and ideas.

Once this mentality is installed in youngsters they become increasingly prone to being easily pushed into a gang situation by any problem at home or elsewhere. For instance, in poor amilies with many children or upper-middle class families where parents are always working, the children will often feel deprived of love. Parents can often feel that putting food on the table is enough love. Children of these families may often go to the gang firstly out of boredom and to belong somewhere. As time goes on, a form of love or kinship develops between the gang members and the child.

It is then that the bond between the kid and the gang is completed because the gang has effectively taken the place of the family. The new anti social structure of cities also effects the ase in which a boy/girl can join a gang. ” The formation of gangs in cities, and most recently in suburbs, is facilitated by the same lack of community among parents. The parents do not know what their children are doing for two reasons: First, much of the parents’ lives is outside the local community, while the children’s lives are lived almost totally within it.

Second, in a fully developed community, the network of relations gives every parent, in a sense, a community of sentries who can keep him informed of his child’s activities. In modern living-places (city r suburban), where such a network is attenuated, he no longer has such sentries. “2, (Merton Nisbet, 1971). In male gangs problems occur as each is the members tries to be the most manly. This often leads to all members participating in “one-up-manship”. Quite often this will then lead to each member trying to commit a bigger and more violent crime or simply more crimes than the others.

With all members participating in this sort of activity it makes for a never ending unorganized violence spree (A sort of Clockwork Orange mentality). In gangs with more intellegent members these eelings end up making each member want to be the star when the groups commit a crime. This makes the gang much more organized and improves the morale of members which in turn makes them more dangerous and very hard for the police to deal with and catch (There is nothing harder to find and deal with than organized teens that are dedicated to the group).

This sort of gang is usually common of middle or upper class people although it can happen in gangs in the projects and other low rent districts too. This “one-up-manship” is often the reason between rival gangs fighting. All gangs feel powerful and they want to be eared. To do this they try to establish themselves as the only gang in a certain neighborhood. After a few gang fights hatred forms and gang murders and drive-by’s begin to take place. When two gangs are at war it makes life very dangerous for citizens in the area.

Less that 40% of drive-by’s kill their intended victim yet over 60% do kill someone. This gang application is one of the many reasons that sexual sterotypes and pressure to conform to the same must be stopped. Lastly one of the great factors in joining a gang is for protection. Although from an objective point of view, we can ee joining a gang brings more danger than it saves you from, this is not always the way it is seen by kids. In slums such as the Bronx or the very worst case, Compton, children will no doubt be beaten and robbed if they do not join a gang.

Of course they can probably get the same treatment from rivals when in a gang. The gang also provides some money for these children who quite often need to feed their families. The reason kids think that the gang will keep them safe is from propoganda from the gangs. Gang members will say that no one will get hurt and make a public show of revenge if a member is urt or killed. People in low rent areas are most often being repressed due to poverty and most importantly, race.

This often results in an attitude that motivates the person to base his/her life on doing what the system that oppresses them doesn’t want. Although this accomplishes little it is a big factor in gang enrollment. So, as you have seen gangs are a product of the environment we have created for ourselves. Some of these factors include: oppression, the media, greed, violence and other gangs. There seems to be no way to end the problem of gangs without totally restructuring the modern economy and alue system.

Since the chance of this happening is minimal, we must learn to cope with gangs and try to keep their following to a minimum. Unfortunately there is no real organized force to help fight gangs. Of course the police are supposed to do this but this situation quite often deals with racial issues also and the police forces regularly display their increasing inability to deal fairly with these issues. What we need are more people to form organizations like the “Guardian Angels” a gang-like group that makes life very tough for street gangs that are breaking laws.

Violence and Pornography

In the late Seventies, America became shocked and outraged by the rape, mutilation, and murder of over a dozen young, beautiful girls. The man who committed these murders, Ted Bundy, was later apprehended and executed. During his detention in various penitentiaries, he was mentally probed and prodded by psychologist and psychoanalysts hoping to discover the root of his violent actions and sexual frustrations. Many theories arose in attempts to explain the motivational factors behind his murderous escapades.

However, the strongest and most feasible of these theories came not from the psychologists, but from the man himself, “as a teenager, my buddies and I would all sneak around and watch porn. As I grew older, I became more and more interested and involved in it, [pornography] became an obsession. I got so involved in it, I wanted to incorporate [porn] into my life, but I couldn’t behave like that and maintain the success I had worked so hard for. I generated an alter-ego to fulfill my fantasies under-cover.

Pornography was a means of unlocking the evil I had burried inside myself” (Leidholdt 47). Is it possible that pornography is acting as the key to unlocking the evil in more unstable minds? According to Edward Donnerstein, a leading researcher in the pornography field, “the relationship between sexually violent images in the media and subsequent aggression and . . . callous attitudes towards women is much stonger statistically than the relationship between smoking and cancer” (Itzin 22).

After considering the increase in rape and molestation, sexual harassment, and other sex crimes over the last few decades, and also the corresponding increase of business in the pornography industry, the link between violence and pornogrpahy needs considerable study and examination. Once the evidence you will encounter in this paper is evaluated and quantified, it will be hard not come away with the realization that habitual use of pornographic material promotes unrealistic and unattainable desires in men that can leac to violent behavior toward women.

In order to properly discuss pornography, and be able to link it to violence, we must first come to a basic and agreeable understanding of what the word pornography means. The term pornogrpahy originates from two greek words, porne, which means harlot, and graphein, which means to write (Webster’s 286). My belief is that the combination of the two words was originally meant to describe, in literature, the sexual escapades of women deemed to be whores. As time has passed, this definition of pornography has grown to include any and all obscene literature and pictures.

At the present date, the term is basically a blanket which covers all types of material such as explicit literature, photography, films, and video tapes with varying degrees of sexual content. For Catherine Itzin’s research purposes pornogrpahy has been divided into three categories: The sexually explicit and violent; the sexually explicit and nonviolent, but subordinating and dehumanizing; and the sexually explicit, nonviolent, and nonsubordinating that is based upon mutuality.

The sexually explicit and violent is graphic, showing penetration and ejaculation. Also, it shows the violent act toward a woman. The second example shows the graphic sexual act and climax, but not a violent act. This example shows the woman being dressed is a costume or being ‘talked down’ to in order to reduce her to something not human; such as a body part or just something to have sex with, a body opening or an orifice. Not only does ‘erotica’ show the entire graphic sexual act, it also depicts an attraction between two people.

Her research consistently shows that harmful effects are associated with the first two, but that the third ‘erotica’, is harmless (22). These three categories basically exist as tools of discerning content. Although sometimes they overlap without a true distinction, as in when the film is graphic in the sexual act and also in violence, but shows the act as being a mutual activity between the people participating. In my view, to further divide pornography, it is possible to break it down into even simpler categories: soft and hard core pornography.

Hard core pornography is a combination of the sexually explicit and violent and the sexually explicit and nonviolent, but subordinating and dehumanizing categories, previously discussed. Soft core pornography is thought to be harmless and falls into the category known as ‘erotica’; which is the category based on mutuality. In hard core pornogrpahy, commonly rated XXX, you can see graphic depiction’s of violent sexual acts usually with a man or group of men, deriving sexual gratification from the degradation of a woman.

You can also see women participating in demoralizing sexual behavior among themselves for the gratification of men. In a triple-X movie all physical aspects are shown, such as extreme close-ups of genitalia, oral, vaginal, and anal penetration, and also ejaculation. Much of the time emphasis is put on the painful and humiliating experience of the woman, for the sole satisfaction of the male. Soft core pornography, or X-rated pornography, is less explicit in terms of what is shown and the sexual act is usually put in the light of mutual enjoyment for both the male and female parties(Cameron and Frazer 23).

Triple-X pornography is manufactured and sold legally in the United States. Deborah Cameron and Elizabeth Frazer point out that other forms of hard core pornography that have to be kept under wraps, made and sold illegally in underground ‘black’ markets. These are ultraviolent, ‘snuff’, and child pornography. Ultraviolent tapes or videos show the actual torture, rape, and sometime mutilation of a woman. ‘Snuff’ films go even future to depict the actual death of a victim, and child pornography reveals the use of under-age or pre-pubescent children for sexual purposes (17-18).

These types of pornogrpahy cross over the boundaries of entertainment and are definitely hard core. Now that pornography has been defined in a fashion mirroring its content, it is now possible to touch upon the more complex ways a community, as a society , views or defines it. Some have said it is impossible for a group of individuals to form a concrete opinion as to what pornography means. A U. S. Supreme Court judge is quoted as saying, “I can’t define pornography, but I know it when I see it” (Itzin 20).

This statement can be heard at community meetings in every state, city, and county across the nation. Community standards are hazy due to the fact that when asked what pornography is to them, most individuals cannot express or explain in words what pornography is, therefore creating confusion among themselves. Communities are left somewhat helpless in this matter since the federal courts passed legislation to keep pornography available to adults.

The courts assess that to ban or censor the material would be infringing on the public’s First Amendment Right (Carol 28). Maureen O’Brien quotes critics of a congressionally terminated bill, the Pornography Victim’s Compensation Act, as saying “That if it had passed, it would have had severely chilling effects on the First Amendment, allowing victims of sexual crimes to file suit against producers and distributors of any work that was proven to have had ‘caused’ the attack, such as graphic material in books, magazines, videos, films, and records” (7).

People in a community debating over pornography often have different views as to whether or not it should even be made available period, and some could even argue this point against the types of women used in pornography: “A far greater variety of female types are shown as desirable in pornography than mainstream films and network television have ever recognized: fat women, flat women, hairy women, aggressive women, older women, you name it” (Carol 25).

If we could all decide on just exactly what pornography is and what is acceptable, there wouldn’t be so much debate over the issue of censoring it. The bounds of community standards have been stretched by mainstreaming movies, opening the way even further for the legalization of more explicit fare (Jenish 53). In most contemporary communities explicit sex that is without violent or dehumanizing acts is acceptable in American society today. These community standards have not been around very long.

When movies were first brought out, they were heavily restricted and not protected by the First Amendment, because films then were looked upon only as diversionary entertainment and business. Even though sexual images were highly monitored, the movie industry was hit so hard during the Great Depression that film-makers found themselves sneaking in as much sexual content as possible, even then they saw that ‘sex sells’ (Clark 1029). Films were highly restricted throughout the 30’s, 40’s, and 50’s by the industry, but once independent films of the 60’s such as: “Bonnie and Clyde” and “Whose afraid of Virginia Woolfe? (Clark 1029-30), both with explicit language, sexual innuendo, and violence started out-performing the larger ‘wholesome’ production companies, many of the barriers holding sex and violence back were torn down in the name of profit .

Adult content was put into movies long ago, we have become more immune and can’t expect it to get any better or to go away. Porn is here for good. Pornography is a multi-million dollar international industry, ultimately run by organized crime all over the world, and is produced by the respectable mainstream publishing business companies (Itzin 21).

Although the publishing companies are thought to be ‘respectable’, people generally stereotype buyers and users of pornographic material as ‘dirty old men in trenchcoats’, but most patrons of adult stores are well-educated people with disposable income (Jenish 52). Porno movies provide adults of both genders with activities they normally wouldn’t get in everyday life, such as oral pleasures or different types of fetishes. Ultimately adult entertainment is just a quick-fix for grown-ups, as junk-food would be for small children. Pornography’s main purpose is to serve as masturbatory stimuli for males and to provide a sexual vent.

Although in the beginning, society saw it as perverted and sinful, it was still considered relatively harmless. Today there is one case studie, standing out from the rest, that tends to shatter this illusion. The study done my Monica D. Weisz and Christopher M. Earls used “eighty-seven males . . . that were randomly shown one of four films”, by researchers William Tooke and Martin Lalumiere: “Deliverance, Straw Dogs, Die Hard II, and Days of Thunder”, for a study on how they would react to questions about sexual violence and offenders after watching.

In the four films there is sexual aggression against a male, sexual aggression against a female, physical aggression, and neutrality-no explicit scenes of physical or sexual aggression. Out of this study the males were more acceptable of interpersonal violence and rape myths and also more attracted to sexual aggression. These same males were less sympathetic to rape victims and were noted less likely to find a defendant guilty of rape (71). These four above mentioned movies are mainstreamed R-rated films.

If a mainstream movie can cause this kind of distortion of value and morality, then it should become evident that continuous viewing/use of pornographic films depicting violent sex and aggression could lead vulnerable persons into performing or participating in sexual violence against their partners or against a stranger. Bill Marshall, psychology professor at Queen’s University and director of a sexual behavior clinic in Kingston, interviewed one-hundred and twenty men, between the years 1980 and 1985, who had molested children or raped women.

In his conclusion he found that pornography appeared to be a significant factor in the chain of events leading up to a deviant act in 25% of these cases (Nicols 60). The results of this study should prove that pornography obviously has a down side to it. According to Mark Nicols, a psychology professor at the University of Michigan, Neil Malamuth, concludes quite cautiously that some messages combined with other factors, including the viewer’s personality type, in pornography can lead to antisocial behavior and make individuals less sensitive to violence.

Dr. Marshall also quotes men in Nicols article as saying, “that they looked at pornography with the intent to masturbate, but then became aroused, and decided to go out and assault a woman or child. ” Men who are drawn into pornography and use it frequently, have also been proven to suggest more lenient prison terms for sex offenders” (60). If this previous statement is true, should we reevaluate how many men serve on juries for these trials? Itzin gives possible support for these theories.

It can be found in the case of an ex-prostitute who had her pubic hair removed with a jackknife and was forced by her pimp to be filmed reenacting what they had seen in pornographic movies; she was sexually assaulted and forced to have intercourse with animals, generally dogs. Another such case is one of a woman who reports having metal clips attached to her breasts, being tied to a chair, and being raped and beaten continuously for twelve hours (22-24). The dehumanizing, degradation, and reduction of a woman’s body isn’t just a result of viewed pornography, it is often inseminated into the production of a pornographic project.

During the making of “Deep Throat”, a 1970’s pornographic film, Linda Marchiano (a. k. a. Linda Lovelace), was presented to the public as a liberated woman with an ever present and unfulfilled appetite for fellatio. What isn’t known to the general public is that during the making of the movie, she was hypnotized to suppress the natural gagging reaction, was tortured when caught trying to escape, and also held at gun-point by her boss, who threatened her with death (Itzin 22). Ms.

Marchiano did escape and when her story was told, it was repeated by a number of women in the pornography business. According to D’Arcy Jenish many children are lured into the pornography industry by choosing first to model. These young teen’s egos are boosted when they are told “[they have good bodies]”, and are asked “if they work out? “. More often than not, they are told “to take off [their] shirts”, and then asked “Do you feel nervous? ” (36). These youngsters honestly don’t know when too much is too much, and what they don’t know could put them in serious danger.

Calvin Klein, once known for being a reputable clothing designer, is now known for his racy ads using teens. Some feel he crossed the line when he chose this type of advertising. Jenish observes that these advertisements “featured an array of . . . teen-aged models dressed in loose jeans or hiked-up skirts, one showing bare breasts, others offering androgynous models kissing” (36). If adults in positions of power act this way, these youngsters cannot expect other adults to act any differently. Therefore they accept this type of behavior as normal.

Diana Russell claims that tactics like these are being used more often in advertising and television, which has led media watchdogs and anti-porn activists to believe that this sort of masked imitation of pornography tricks mainstream television viewers into having an “everybody’s doing it” attitude about pornography. She also feels that this attitude subconsciously leads them into seeking pornography out (39). We need to show the younger generation that everyone is not doing ‘it’, and that it is all right not to have sex if they feel pressured.

Another problem anti-pornography activists believe arises from regular viewing of pornography, is the acceptance of “rape myths”. Rape myth is a term pertaining to people’s views on rape, rapists, and sexual assaults, wherein it is assumed that the victim of a sexual crime is either partially or completely to blame (Allen 6). To help understand the rape myth a “Rape Myth Acceptance Scale” was established, which lists some of the most prominent beliefs that a person accepting the rape myth has. They are as follows: 1. A woman who goes to the home or apartment of a man on their first date implies that she is willing to have sex. . One reason that women falsely report a rape is that they frequently have a need to call attention to themselves. 3. Any healthy woman can successfully resist a rapist if she really wants to.

4. When women go around braless or wearing short skirts and tight tops, they are just asking for trouble. 5. In the majority or rapes, the victim is promiscuous or has a bad reputation. 6. If a girl engages in necking or petting and she lets things get out of hand, it is her own fault if her partner forces sex on her. 7. Women who get raped while hitchhiking get what they deserve. . Many women have an unconscious wish to be raped, and may then [subconsciously] set up a situation in which they are likely to be attacked. 9. If a woman gets drunk at a party and has intercourse with a man she’s just met there, she should be considered “fair game” to other males at the party who want to have sex with her too, whether she wants to or not (Burt 217). Pauline Bart reports that studies held simultaneously at UCLA and St. Xavier College on students, demonstrate that pornography does positively reinforce the rape myth.

Men and women were exposed to over four hours of exotic video (of varying types; i. e. soft, hard core, etc. ) and then asked to answer a set of questions meant to gage their attitudes of sex crimes. All the men were proven to be more accepting to rape myths, and surprisingly, over half of the women were also (123). Once again, the women in these films were portrayed as insatiable and in need of constant fulfillment. After so much exposure to women in this light from films and books, it is generally taken for granted that women should emulate this type of behavior in real life(125). comment?

Of all the studies and examples from real life situations connecting pornography with violent behavior and sexual aggressiveness, none are more concrete than the activities the Serbian military are part of every day now in the Bosnian war. Part of the “ethnic cleansing” process the Serbs are practicing in Bosnia involves the gang-raping of all Muslim and Croatian women. Andrea Dworkin states that it is mandatory for the Serbian soldiers to rape the wives and female children of Muslim men. Concentration camps are set up as brothels where women are ordered to satisfy the soldiers in the most painful and dehumanizing ways imaginable.

The women in these camps are taped with cam-corders and the videos are displayed everywhere throughout the camps to lower the woman’s will and need to resist. Were do the soldiers get the inspiration to commit these crimes, from commercial pornography. Serbian troops are basically force-fed porn; it is present all through training and is made readily available to (even pushed upon) the soldiers. They are basically asked to “watch and learn”. After the seed is planted not much is needed to be done, because they are naturally instilled with the desire to repeat what they have seen, and are not concerned with the feelings of the women.

They have seen that some women have no feelings and are meant to be used merely for sexual gratification (M2-M6). To add insult to injury, some of the tapes of these women being victimized have entered the black market, being sold internationally, possible infecting the minds of millions. Pornogrpahy has enamored itself as a large part of our modern society. It is seldom discussed and often hidden as a dirty secret, but porn still seems to play a major part in the shaping of our morals and behaviors.

Although some say pornography is relatively harmless, a considerable larger group seem to uphold the assumption the porn works in negative and disruptive ways on those who view it and participate. Nearly all the research supports this assumption, so it is evident the the topic is in need of much more examination and debate. Even though the majority of modern society views pornography as objectionable and sometimes obscene, there are some that do not agree with the assumption that pornography is guilty of the defamation of women and their sexual roles.

Social observationalists, such as Mary White, at the University of Michigan often agree with her statement on the part women play in pornogrpahy which explains that “since most pornographic material plays up to male fantasy, women are usually the aggressors, hence women are given a semblance of empowerment. Also, the majority of these women in the material are very attractive, therefore seen as the forms of beauty and desire, something to be respected and worked for” (72). Although White may not realize it, this statement reinforced most of the arguments made in support of the notion that pornography is subordinating and degrading to women.

By saying that being sexually aggressive gives a woman empowerment, she limits a woman’s ability to reach empowerment to sexual activity alone, and by claiming that the use of attractive women in pornographic material lends to a view of women being desirable, she inadvertently excludes women that don’t fit society’s mold of the model physical female, (i. e. overweight, small breasted, short, etc. ). Most of the arguments similar to White’s follow the same line of reasoning, and are easily broken down in the same manner as hers.

In regards to pornogrpahy perpetuating violent acts toward women, pornography defenders claim that the use of pornographic material can act as a cathartic release, actual lessening the likelihood of males committing violent acts. The reasoning is that the pornogrpahy can substitute for sex and that the ‘want’ to commit sexual crimes is acted out vicariously through the pornographic material (Whicclair 327). This argument, however, does not explain the crimes committed by serial killers like Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacey, who regularly viewed pornography during the lengths of their times between murders and rapes (Scully 70).

By saying that pornogrpahy would reduce harm to women through cathartic effects, pornography defenders display a large lack in reasoning because through their argument the rise in the production of pornography would have led to a decrease in sexual crimes, but as has been shown previously, that simply is not true. Pornographers and pornography defenders proclaim that the link between pornography and violence is exaggerated and that the research linking pornography to sexual crimes is inconclusive.

They state that the fundamentals of sex crimes are found inherently in the individuals and that the sexual permissiveness of American society cannot be blamed on the increase of pornography’s availability (Jacobson 79). David Adams, a co-founder and executive director of Emerge, a Boston counseling center for male batterers, states, “that only a minority of his clients (perhaps 10 to 20 percent) use hard-core pornography. He estimates that half may have substance abuse problems, and adds that alcohol seems more directly involved in abuse than pornography” (Kaminer 115).

The statement made by Adams and the view that pornography does not contribute to the act of sex crimes is heavily outweighed, however, by the various studies connecting violence and pornography. Bill Marshall’s observations on his patients and the examples of individual crimes originating from pornography, show this acclimation to be invalidated. Some also say that attacks on pornography merely reflect the majority of feminist’s disdain for men, cynically stating that people who fear pornography think of all men as potential abusers, whose violent impulses are bound to be sparked by pornography (114).

Researcher Catherin MacKinnon, says that “pornography works as a behavioral conditioner, reinforcer, and stimulus, not as idea or advocacy” (114). However, this idea is proven to be false by the use of pornography in and by the Serbian military. This example shows that pornography does advocate sex crimes and that ideas of sexual violence are able to be stemmed from the viewing of pornography. Pornography has become to most just another one of those cold, nasty facts of life that cannot be stopped, so some choose to ignore it.

This attitude has to change. After reviewing the abuse and subordination delegated to women as an almost indisputable result of the mass infiltration of pornography into modern society, it should be impossible for someone not to want to do something about it. What can be done is for those concerned to try to spread the word and educate others as much as possible to the dangers of this sort of material. If people knew the roots of some of their more violent behavior, it could be deminished, thus protecting the future and health of our communities.

From its inception, in most cases, pornography is a media that links sexual gratification and violence together. This fact can only lead a rational mind to the conclusion that a chain of events will begin, combining sex and violence further in the minds of those who watch pornography and will ensure an unhealthy attitude towards women and their sexual identities. Only through discussion and individual action can the perpetuation of the negative impacts of pornography be swept from the closets and dark corners of the American household.

Gangs are a violent reality

Gangs are a violent reality that people have to deal with in today’s cities. What has made these groups come about? Why do kids feel that being in a gang is both an acceptable and prestigious way to live? The long range answer to these questions can only be speculated upon, but in the short term the answers are much easier to find. On the surface, gangs are a direct result of human beings’ personal wants and peer pressure. To determine how to effectively end gang violence we must find the way that these morals are given to the individual. Unfortunately, these can only be hypothesized.

However, by looking at the way humans are influenced in society, I believe there is good evidence to point the blame at several institutions. These include the forces of the media, the government, theatre, drugs and our economic system. On the surface, gangs are caused by peer pressure and greed. Many teens in gangs will pressure peers into becoming part of a gang by making it all sound glamorous. Money is also an crucial factor. A kid (a 6-10 year old, who is not yet a member) is shown that s/he could make $200 to $400 for small part time gang jobs.

Although these are important factors they are not strong enough to make kids do things that are strongly against their morals. One of the ways that kids morals are bent so that gang violence becomes more acceptable is the influence of television and movies. The average child spends more time at a TV than she/he spends in a classroom. Since nobody can completely turn off their minds, kids must be learning something while watching the TV. Very few hours of television watched by children are educational, so other ideas are being absorbed during this period of time.

Many shows on television today are extremely violent and are often shown this from a gang’s perspective. A normal adult can see that this is showing how foully that gangs are living. However, to a child this portrays a violent gang existance as acceptable. ‘The Ends Justifies the Means’ mentality is also taught through many shows where the “goody guy” captures the “bad guy” through violence and is then being commended. A young child sees this a perfectly acceptable because he knows that the “bad guy” was wrong but has no idea of what acceptable apprehension techniques are.

Gore in television also takes a big part in influencing young minds. Children see gory scenes and are fascinated by these things that they have not seen before. Older viewers see gore and are not concerned with the blood but rather with the pain the victim must feel. A younger mind doesn’t make this connection. Thus a gore fascination is formed, and has been seen in several of my peers. Unfortunately kids raised with this sort of television end up growing up with a stronger propensity to becoming a violent gang member or ‘violent- acceptant’ person. Gangs bring the delinquent norms of society into intimate contact with the individual. “1, (Marshall B Clinard, 1963).

So, as you can see if TV leads a child to believe that violence is the norm this will manifest itself in the actions of the child quite, often in a gang situation. This is especially the case when parents don’t spend a lot of time with their kids at the TV explaining what is right and what is wrong. Quite often newer books and some types of music will enforce this type of thought and ideas.

Once this mentality is installed in youngsters they become increasingly prone to being easily pushed into a gang situation by any problem at home or elsewhere. For instance, in poor families with many children or upper-middle class families where parents are always working, the children will often feel deprived of love. Parents can often feel that putting food on the table is enough love. Children of these families may often go to the gang firstly out of boredom and to belong somewhere. As time goes on, a form of love or kinship develops between the gang members and the child.

It is then that the bond between the kid and the gang is completed because the gang has effectively taken the place of the family. The new anti social structure of cities also effects the ease in which a boy/girl can join a gang. ” The formation of gangs in cities, and most recently in suburbs, is facilitated by the same lack of community among parents. The parents do not know what their children are doing for two reasons: First, much of the parents’ lives is outside the local community, while the children’s lives are lived almost totally within it.

Second, in a fully developed community, the network of relations gives every parent, in a sense, a community of sentries who can keep him informed of his child’s activities. In modern living-places (city or suburban), where such a network is attenuated, he no longer has such sentries. “2, (Merton Nisbet, 1971). In male gangs problems occur as each is the members tries to be the most manly. This often leads to all members participating in “one-up-manship”. Quite often this will then lead to each member trying to commit a bigger and more violent crime or simply more crimes than the others.

With all members participating in this sort of activity it makes for a never ending unorganized violence spree (A sort of Clockwork Orange mentality). In gangs with more intellegent members these feelings end up making each member want to be the star when the groups commit a crime. This makes the gang much more organized and improves the morale of members which in turn makes them more dangerous and very hard for the police to deal with and catch (There is nothing harder to find and deal with than organized teens that are dedicated to the group).

This sort of gang is usually common of middle or upper class people although it can happen in gangs in the projects and other low rent districts too. This “one-up-manship” is often the reason between rival gangs fighting. All gangs feel powerful and they want to be feared. To do this they try to establish themselves as the only gang in a certain neighborhood. After a few gang fights hatred forms and gang murders and drive-by’s begin to take place. When two gangs are at war it makes life very dangerous for citizens in the area.

Less that 40% of drive-by’s kill their intended victim yet over 60% do kill someone. This gang application is one of the many reasons that sexual sterotypes and pressure to conform to the same must be stopped. Lastly one of the great factors in joining a gang is for protection. Although from an objective point of view, we can see joining a gang brings more danger than it saves you from, this is not always the way it is seen by kids. In slums such as the Bronx or the very worst case, Compton, children will no doubt be beaten and robbed if they do not join a gang.

Of course they can probably get the same treatment from rivals when in a gang. The gang also provides some money for these children who quite often need to feed their families. The reason kids think that the gang will keep them safe is from propoganda from the gangs. Gang members will say that no one will get hurt and make a public show of revenge if a member is hurt or killed. People in low rent areas are most often being repressed due to poverty and most importantly, race.

This often results in an attitude that motivates the person to base his/her life on doing what the system that oppresses them doesn’t want. Although this accomplishes little it is a big factor in gang enrollment. So, as you have seen gangs are a product of the environment we have created for ourselves. Some of these factors include: oppression, the media, greed, violence and other gangs. There seems to be no way to end the problem of gangs without totally restructuring the modern economy and value system.

Since the chance of this happening is minimal, we must learn to cope with gangs and try to keep their following to a minimum. Unfortunately there is no real organized force to help fight gangs. Of course the police are supposed to do this but this situation quite often deals with racial issues also and the police forces regularly display their increasing inability to deal fairly with these issues. What we need are more people to form organizations like the “Guardian Angels” a gang-like group that makes life very tough for street gangs that are breaking laws.

Television Violence and Its Effects on Children

This literature review is based on the effects of television violence on children. More specifically, it deals with the relationship found between television violence and aggression found in young children. I chose this topic because I found it interesting to learn that studies have indeed found a connection between television viewing and the behavior of people, especially children. The first study reviewed is entitled “Television Violence and Children’s Aggression: Testing the Priming. Social script, and Disinhibition Predictions,” by Wendy Josephson.

Josephson begins her study y commenting on other studies which pertain to the idea of television violence leading to aggressiveness in children’s behavior. She acknowledges that, in fact, there are still differing views over whether or not behavior is affected by the violence. However, Josephson tends to rely more on the idea that it is affected and feels that more research should be directed to this area. Mostly, attention is focused on factors such as the disinhibition effect and cue-triggered aggression.

Josephson aims to differentiate these two areas and how they are affected by television violence. The overall urpose of her study is to research the effect this violence has on boys’ aggression. Special emphasis is placed on factors such as teacher-rated characteristic aggressiveness in the boys, timing of frustration (before or after watching the televised violence, and violence related cues. Josephson’s study is detailed and technical. However, sometimes it gets very difficult to understand the study due to the many advanced, technical terms used.

The purpose of the study is somewhat easy to determine, and the three hypotheses on which she bases her research on are outlined clearly in the end of the review. It is understandable, from the review, how she came to her hypotheses. The second study reviewed is by Leonard D. Eron. Titled “Interventions to Mitigate the Psychological Effects of Media Violence on Aggressive Behavior,” it begins with Eron’s realization that although many studies were conducted which support the link between violence on television and aggressive behavior, very few studies have been conducted which attempt to intervene between the two.

Interventions between television violence and aggression could be useful because, then studies could be conducted on educing the effects of violence on the viewer. Also, the results of such a study could be helpful in researching the cause and effect relationship which may exist between the two. However, this would require that the interventions pertain exclusively to television viewing and that any other areas of intervention are controlled. If the aggressive behavior is reduced, it could support the theory of a causal effect as convincingly as a study performed in a carefully controlled laboratory experiment.

The literature review is clear and easy to understand. Eron states at the beginning what his study is about. However, it is not clear in the review, at first, that his study deals with young children. This should have been more apparent since different results are expected depending on who the study involves. It is apparent, however, that his intentions are to study the results which would come from a study involving intervening variables between television violence and aggressive behavior. “Effects of Realistic TV Violence vs.

Fictional Violence on Aggression” by Charles Atkin is the third study to be reviewed. Atkin’s study starts off by stating that much evidence supports the theory that elevised violence contributes to rising amounts of aggression found among young people. He focuses his literature review on the aspect of reality vs. fantasy in violence. More realistic forms of violence are said to lead to greater aggression. His study deals with the comparison of aggressive responses in pre-adolescents to real news violence and fictional entertainment violence. Reality, in the case of these studies, is perceived by the viewer.

The viewer determines whether or not the violence appears real by the extent to which the events really did or could exist in the real world or through imilarities which the event holds with the viewers social or physical environment. If a violent situation appears real, the viewer is more likely to identify with it. Therefore, it is said to lead to more aggression than violence in unrealistic situations. Atkins seeks, in his study, causal evidence of impact which takes into account reality violence, fantasy violence, and no violence treatments.

Atkin gives a clear, understandable idea of what his study is about. This lit review was very well done. His purpose was clear and his hypotheses were well explained at the end of the review. By explaining the nformation lacking in previous studies, it was easy to see how he came to these hypotheses and what he intends to accomplish. The fourth and final study to be reviewed is titled “Intervening Variables in the TV Violence-Aggression Relation: Evidence from Two Countries” by L. R. Huesmann, K. Lagerspertz, and L. Eron.

These researchers attempt to determine the boundary conditions under which the theory of television violence leading to aggression pertains. They also set out to study the impact intervening variables, such as age, culture, and sex, have on the tv violence-aggression relation. Finally, they attempt to further examine how the viewing of television violence relates to aggression. Most of their study focuses on children imitating what they observe. However, they acknowledge the fact that these observations may be altered due to the society in which they live, their age, or their sex.

Therefore, Huesmann, Lagerspertz, and Eron stress the necessity of conducting similar methods of study in various kinds of cultures to gain the necessary information for obtaining a general view of the effects of television violence on children. Their hypotheses, which pertain to the question of why television ffects males more than females, are clearly stated. In fact, the whole literature review is pretty clear and straightforward. The purpose, however, of the study is not really clear until close to the end. It is difficult to figure out where the actual study begins and where the review ends.

Most of the other reviews clearly mark where the methodology starts. In conclusion, the studies all basically aim to learn more about the connection between television violence and aggression among young children. However, the majority of the studies deal primarily with the effect of the violence on males. Therefore, females seem to be hardly ever thought of as a different category in this area. Only one of the studies even mentioned the use of females to achieve different results. Most of the studies were easy to comprehend, and the researchers were fairly straightforward in what they expected to accomplish with their studies.

Television Violence and Its Effects on Children This literature review is based on the effects of television violence on children. More specifically, it deals with the relationship found between television violence and aggression found in young children. I chose his topic because I found it interesting to learn that studies have indeed found a connection between television viewing and the behavior of people, especially children. The first study reviewed is entitled “Television Violence and Children’s Aggression: Testing the Priming.

Social script, and Disinhibition Predictions,” by Wendy Josephson. Josephson begins her study by commenting on other studies which pertain to the idea of television violence leading to aggressiveness in children’s behavior. She acknowledges that, in fact, there are still differing views over whether or not behavior is affected by the violence. However, Josephson tends to rely more on the idea that it is affected and feels that more research should be directed to this area. Mostly, attention is focused on factors such as the disinhibition effect and cue-triggered aggression.

Josephson aims to differentiate these two areas and how they are affected by television violence. The overall purpose of her study is to research the effect this violence has on boys’ aggression. Special emphasis is placed on factors such as teacher-rated characteristic aggressiveness in the boys, timing of frustration (before or after watching the televised violence, and violence related cues. Josephson’s study is detailed and technical. However, sometimes it gets very difficult to understand the study due to the many advanced, technical terms used.

The purpose of the study is somewhat easy to determine, and the three hypotheses on which she bases her research on are outlined clearly in the end of the review. It is understandable, from the review, how she came to her hypotheses. The second study reviewed is by Leonard D. Eron. Titled “Interventions to Mitigate the Psychological Effects of Media Violence on Aggressive Behavior,” it begins with Eron’s realization that although many studies ere conducted which support the link between violence on television and aggressive behavior, very few studies have been conducted which attempt to intervene between the two.

Interventions between television violence and aggression could be useful because, then studies could be conducted on reducing the effects of violence on the viewer. Also, the results of such a study could be helpful in researching the cause and effect relationship which may exist between the two. However, this would require that the interventions pertain exclusively to television viewing and that any other areas of intervention are controlled. If the aggressive behavior is reduced, it could support the theory of a causal effect as convincingly as a study performed in a carefully controlled laboratory experiment.

The literature review is clear and easy to understand. Eron states at the beginning what his study is about. However, it is not clear in the review, at first, that his study deals with young children. This should have been more apparent since different results are expected depending on who the study involves. It is apparent, however, that his intentions are to study the results which would come from a study involving intervening ariables between television violence and aggressive behavior. “Effects of Realistic TV Violence vs.

Fictional Violence on Aggression” by Charles Atkin is the third study to be reviewed. Atkin’s study starts off by stating that much evidence supports the theory that televised violence contributes to rising amounts of aggression found among young people. He focuses his literature review on the aspect of reality vs. fantasy in violence. More realistic forms of violence are said to lead to greater aggression. His study deals with the comparison of aggressive responses in re-adolescents to real news violence and fictional entertainment violence. Reality, in the case of these studies, is perceived by the viewer.

The viewer determines whether or not the violence appears real by the extent to which the events really did or could exist in the real world or through similarities which the event holds with the viewers social or physical environment. If a violent situation appears real, the viewer is more likely to identify with it. Therefore, it is said to lead to more aggression than violence in unrealistic situations. Atkins seeks, in his study, causal vidence of impact which takes into account reality violence, fantasy violence, and no violence treatments.

Atkin gives a clear, understandable idea of what his study is about. This lit review was very well done. His purpose was clear and his hypotheses were well explained at the end of the review. By explaining the information lacking in previous studies, it was easy to see how he came to these hypotheses and what he intends to accomplish. The fourth and final study to be reviewed is titled “Intervening Variables in the TV Violence-Aggression Relation: Evidence from Two Countries” by L. R. Huesmann, K. Lagerspertz, and L. Eron.

These researchers attempt to determine the boundary conditions under which the theory of television violence leading to aggression pertains. They also set out to study the impact intervening variables, such as age, culture, and sex, have on the tv violence-aggression relation. Finally, they attempt to further examine how the viewing of television violence relates to aggression. Most of their study focuses on children imitating what they observe. However, they acknowledge the fact that these observations may be altered due to the society in which they live, their age, or their sex.

Therefore, Huesmann, Lagerspertz, and Eron stress the necessity of conducting similar methods of study in various kinds of cultures to gain the necessary information for obtaining a general view of the effects of television violence on children. Their hypotheses, which pertain to the question of why television affects males more than females, are clearly stated. In fact, the whole literature review is pretty clear and straightforward. The purpose, however, of the study is not really clear until close to the end. It is difficult to figure out where the actual study begins and where the review ends.

Most of the other reviews clearly mark where the methodology starts. In conclusion, the studies all basically aim to learn more about the connection between television violence and aggression among young children. However, the majority of the studies deal primarily with the effect of the violence on males. Therefore, females seem to be hardly ever thought of as a different category in this area. Only one of the studies even mentioned the use of females to achieve different results. Most of the studies were easy to comprehend, and the researchers were fairly straightforward in what they expected to accomplish with their studies.

Violence In Entertainment And Its Effect On Society

Does entertainment influence society’s attitude towards violent behavior? In order to fully answer this question we must first understand what violence is. Violence is the use of one’s powers to inflict mental or physical injury upon another, examples of this would be rape or murder. Violence in entertainment reaches the public by way of television, movies, plays, and novels.

Through the course of this essay it will be proven that violence in entertainment is a major factor in the escalation of violence in society, once this is proven we will take all of the evidence that has been shown throughout this paper and come to a conclusion as to whether or not violence in entertainment is justified and whether or not it should be censored. Television with its far reaching influence spreads across the globe. Its most important role is that of reporting the news and maintaining communication between people around the world.

Television’s most influential, yet most serious aspect is its shows for entertainment. Violent children’s shows like Mighty Morphin Power Rangers and adult shows like NYPD Blue and Homicide almost always fail to show human beings being able to resolve their differences in a non-violent manner, instead they show a reckless attitude that promotes violent action first with reflection on the consequences later. In one episode of NYPD Blue three people were murdered in the span of an hour. Contemporary television creates a seemingly insatiable appetite for amusement of all kinds without regard for social or moral benefits” (Schultze 41).

Findings over the past twenty years by three Surgeon Generals, the Attorney General’s Task Force on Family Violence, the American Medical Association, the National Institute of Mental Health, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and other medical authorities indicate that televised violence is harmful to all of us, but particularly to the mental health of children (Medved 70-71).

In 1989 the results of a five year study by the American Psychological Association indicated that the average child has witnessed 8,000 murders and 100,000 other acts of violence on television by the time he or she has completed sixth grade. In further studies it was determined that by the time that same child graduates from high school he or she will have spent 22,000 hours watching television, twice as many hours as he or she has spent in school (Bruno 124).

In a study by the Centers for Disease Control, published by the JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association), it was shown that homicide rates had doubled between the introduction of television in the 1950’s and the end of the study in 1994. In that same study other possible causes for the vast increases in violence were studied, “the ‘baby boom’ effect, trends in urbanization, economic trends, trends in alcohol abuse, the role of capital punishment, civil unrest, the availability of guns, and exposure to television”(Lamson 32).

Each of these purported causes was tested in a variety of ways to see whether it could be eliminated as a credible contributor to doubling the crime rate in the United States, and one by each of them was invalidated, except for television. Children average four hours of television per day, and in the inner city that increases to as much as eleven hours a day, with an average of eight to twelve violent incidents per hour. It is also interesting to note that violence occurs some fifty-five times more often on television than it does in the real world (Medved 156).

FBI and census data show the homicide arrest rate for seventeen-year-olds more than doubled between 1985 and 1991, and the rates for fifteen-and sixteen-year-olds increased even faster. Movies also add their fair share to the problem of violence in society. “Researchers have established that copycat events are not an anomaly. Statistically-speaking, they are rare, but predictable, occurences. Television shows, novels, but especially movies-all can trigger copycat violence” (Medved 72).

As recently as November of 1995, New York City officials believed that the burning of a toll-booth clerk was a result of copycat violence, resulting from a similar scene in the movie Money Train. In 1994, Nathan Martinez shot and killed his stepmother and half sister after watching the movie Natural Born Killers at least six times. “Later, Martinez, who had shaved his head and wore granny sun glasses like Natural Born Killer’s main character Mickey Knox, reportedly told a friend, “It’s nothing like the movies”(Purtell 57).

In a 1993 film, The Program, there was a scene showing college football players lying in the center of a highway in an attempt to show their courage and dedication to their sport. This movie was later blamed for inspiring real-life imitators; (one of whom died). In numorous experiments based at pre-schools, researchers have observed children playing before and after seeing violent movies and television shows. “Following the violent program the children’s play is invaribly more aggressive. They are much more likely to hit, punch, kick, and grab to get their way.

In other words, violent entertainment teaches children how to use aggression for personal gain” (Medved 75). It is also hard to believe that movies like Rambo III with one hundred and six killings and Terminator 2 which showed countless killings plus a nuclear holocaust have at one time had their own line of children’s action figures even though both movies are rated R. One must seriously consider the idea that the movie studios are targeting a younger and easily influenced main audience. The ancient Greeks believed that violence should never be shown on stage, because people imitated what they saw.

Because of this they would only show the results of violence in order to deter any violent activity. The Greeks slowly but surely moved away from this idea as did other playwrights, and by the late 1500’s a new writer with a new view on violence was beginning to write plays. His name was William Shakespeare. Many critics were bothered by Shakespeare’s failure to follow the rules of the ancient Greeks, especially the rules concerning violence, but they also objected to Shakespeare’s comic sexual passages, which they considered vulgar.

Shakespeare was a writer during what has historically been called the Elizabethan era. Shakespeare’s plays reflect the shift from optimism to pessimism in Elizabethan society. “Elizabethans were keenly aware of death and the brevity of life” (Info Find), but death and violence fascinated the Elizabethans. “They flocked to the beheadings of traitors whose heads were exhibited on poles and watched as criminals were hanged, and they saw the rotting corpses dangle from the gallows for days” (The Student Handbook 2: 591). Elizabethans, literature and lives were very violent.

In Shakespeare’s play Hamlet all the main characters die through murder or suicide, all of which is shown on stage. Those critics who say excessive violence has only become a common occurence in today’s entertainment, should watch Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus with its’ stage direction, “Enter a messenger with two heads and a hand” (Klavan 98), or they should watch as quarts of stage blood are poured all over the “victims” in that same play. Novels, just like television, movies, and plays can cause violence. Throughout history novels have been the cause of violent behavior.

Those who say people can’t be influenced by books, should really look into the influence that a book called Uncle Tom’s Cabin had ten years prior to the Civil War. In 1851 Uncle Tom’s Cabin, written by Harriet Beecher Stowe was published. The novel told of the hardships and cruelties faced by African-American slaves in the south. The novel popularlized the abolitionist movement and is believed to have been a major cause for the Civil War, which even though a noble cause, resulted in over 500,000 deaths (The Student Handbook 2: 592). In 1980 Mark Chapman, a former mental patient, shot and killed John Lennon.

When asked why he did it, he indicated that he got the idea to kill Lennon from J. D. Salinger’s novel The Catcher in the Rye (590). He felt that he and the main character in the story, Holden Caufield, were very similar because they were both angry social outcasts, who were recovering from a mental breakdown (590). Violence is prominent in children’s novels too. R. L. Stine’s novel The Babysitter III, tells of decapitating a baby and in Christopher Pike’s novel, Monster, there is a graphic description of the effects of a shotgun being fired at a person’s head at close range.

Roderick McGillis, a professor of English at the University of Calgary and author of a book on children’s literature, has written that, “What disturbs me is that we’re developing in our culture, in our cities, a kind of siege mentality. A lot of thes books reinforce this, make it sort of normal to think that the world is a place in which violence can erupt at any moment” (Gray 54). With all of this evidence it is hard to ignore the fact that violence in entertainment can cause violence in society. This paper has now shown that there are copycat kilers who get the idea for their crimes from entertainment.

It has also been shown that the more violent movies and television children watch the more likely thay are to become aggressive and violent. Violence in entertainment and society is not isolated to the present, it was also very prominent in the writings of Shakespeare. With the evidence showing that violence in entertainment causes real life violence, it is very hard to say that violence in entertainment is justifiable. When little children and adults alike, fall victim to entertainment’s violent influence it is not justifiable and it is especially not justifiable when violent entertainment creates real life victims.

Is censorship the answer to the problem of violent entertainment? Should we tell people what they can or can’t read or watch? The simple answer to this question is no, we can’t censor violent entertainment. The First Amendment clearly states that: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise therof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The instinct to censor is the tragic flaw of utopian minds. “Our first job,” said Plato in his classic attack on the democratic system , “is to oversee the work of the story writers, and to accept any good stories they write, but reject the others” (Klavan 96). If the government ever did censor violent entertainment who knows where they would stop, or even if they would. Perhaps they would try to censor violent speech or try to censor the speech of those who disagreed with the actions of the government.

The simple message is don’t promote censorship, because it could easily get out of hand, and as the old saying goes “the road to hell is paved with good intentions. ” There are then only two ways to get rid of the violent entertainment in our lives: we could shame those who make the violent movies, television shows, books, and plays, into having a social conscience, making them be less prone to creating violent entertainment; or we could simply solve the problem ourselves, with a push of a button, or the turn of a page.