Using MindMaps to Learn English Vocabulary

MindMaps are one of my favorite tools for helping students learn new vocabulary. I also frequently use MindMaps to think creatively for other projects that Im working on. MindMaps help us to learn visually.   Create a MindMap Creating a MindMap can take some time. However, it doesnt need to be complicated. A MindMap can be simple: Take a piece of paper and group vocabulary by theme, for example, school.   Who are the people at school?What kind of objects are in the classroom?What are the different types of classes?Which jobs do the people at school have?Which different types of students are there? Once you have created a MinMap you can expand. For example, from the above example with school, I could create a whole new area for the vocabulary used in each subject. MindMaps for Work English Lets apply these concepts to the workplace. If you are learning English in order to improve the English you use at work. You might want to consider the following subjects for a MindMap Titles of ColleaguesTitles of Customers / ClientsActions (verbs)Equipment I use EverydayMy ResponsibilitiesImportant Phrases to Use When Writing Emails In this example, you could expand on each category. For example, you could branch off categories from Colleagues to include what they do, or you could build out the vocabulary for each type of equipment you use at work. The most important factor is to let your mind guide you as you group vocabulary. Youll not only improve your English vocabulary, but you will quickly gain a better understanding of how the various items in your MindMaps interact. MindMaps for Important Combinations Another way to use a MindMap for vocabulary is to focus on grammar constructions when creating your MindMap. Lets take a look at verb combinations. I could arrange a MindMap using these categories: Verbs Gerund (ing form - doing)Verbs Infinitive (to do)Verbs Pronoun Base Form (do)Verbs Pronouns Infinitive (to do)   MindMaps for Collocations Another vocabulary activity that MindMaps can really help with is learning collocations. Collocations are words that are commonly used together. For example, take the word information. Information is a very general term, and we have all sorts of specific types of information. Information is also a noun. When working on collocations with nouns there are three main areas of vocabulary to learn: adjectives/verb noun/noun verb. Here are the categories for our MindMap: Adjective InformationInformation NounVerb InformationInformation Verb You can expand this MindMap on information further by exploring specific collocations with information used in specific professions. The next you start focusing on vocabulary, try to start using a MindMap. Start off on a piece of paper and become used to organizing your vocabulary in this manner. Next, start using a MindMap program. This will take some extra time, but you will quickly become used to learning vocabulary with this aid. Print off a MindMap and show it to some other students. Im sure theyll be impressed. Perhaps, your grades will start improving as well. In any case, using MindMaps will certainly make learning new vocabulary in English much easier than just writing down words on a list! Now that you understand the use of MindMaps, you can download a free version to create your own MindMaps by searching for Freemind, an easy-to-use open source software program. Now that you understand how to use MindMaps for learning new vocabulary and grammar, youll need some help on how to  create vocabulary lists. Teachers can use this reading comprehension MindMapping lesson to help students apply these technics in reading to help improve comprehension.

Issues of gender in stalking research - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 25 Words: 7445 Downloads: 8 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Statistics Essay Tags: Gender Essay Did you like this example? An Introduction to Issues of Gender in Stalking Research Stalking has been the subject of empirical examination for a little over 20 years. Interest in stalking both empirical and public has increased substantially within the last decade (see Figure 1).   A PsycINFO search of the first decade of stalking research yields only 74 hits. In contrast, the year 2000 marked an upswing of serious investigation with the publication of the first special issue on stalking (Frieze Davis, 2000). There were 56 publications on stalking in 2000 alone and over 600 publications on the topic published between 2000 and 2010.   The Rresearch on stalking has examined predictors of perpetration, consequences of victimization, and public perceptions of stalking. Within each of these domains, one of the lingering questions has been: what role does gender play in stalking? Accordingly, this special issue is intended to contribute to the literature by using gender as a focus point in 1) applying new theoretical perspectives to the study of stalking perpetration (Davis, Swan, Gambone, this issue; Duntley Buss, this issue), 2) extending our knowledge of women and mens (Sheridan Lyndon, this issue; Thompson, Dennison, Stewart, this issue) stalking experiences, and 3) furthering the study of perceptions of stalking (Cass Rosay, this issue; Dunlap, Hodell, Golding, Wasarhaley, this issue; Sinclair, this issue; Yanowitz Yanowitz, this issue). Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Issues of gender in stalking research" essay for you Create order To place this special issue in context of the current state of knowledge on gender and stalking, we will review the state of the current research on examining the role of gender with regard to stalking victimization, perpetration, and the lay and legal perceptions of stalking. We will conclude with a summary of how each of the articles included herein contribute to our knowledge about the role of gender in stalking research. However, it is important to start with clarifying what is meant by the term stalking. The model federal anti-stalking law in the US legally defines stalking as a course of conduct directed at a specific person that involves repeated visual or physical proximity, nonconsensual communication, or verbal, written, or implied threats, or a combination thereof, that would cause a reasonable person fear (National Criminal Justice Association Project, 1993, p. 43-44).   Legal definitions differ across US states, but they tend to have three characteristics: 1) a pattern or course of conduct 2) of unwanted or intrusive harassing behaviors that 3) induces fear of bodily harm or substantial emotional distress in the target (Spitzberg, Cupach, Ciceraro, 2010). Additional terminology has been used in stalking research to discuss unwanted attention, particularly from a romantic pursuer, that does not meet the fear or substantial distress criteria of anti-stalking laws. Alternative labels for these unwanted behaviors engaged in during pursuit of a romantic relationship includ e unwanted pursuit (Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Palarea, Cohen, Rohling, 2000), pre-stalking (Emerson, Ferris, Gardner, 1998), obsessive relational intrusion (ORI: Cupach Spitzberg, 1998, 2004), harassment, or unwanted courtship persistence (Sinclair Frieze, 2000). Whether gender differences may emerge, particularly in perpetration and victimization statistics, may depend on whether the researcher is examining stalking or unwanted pursuit.   In fact, as will be discussed throughout this paper, much of the debate about gender differences is largely due to two variables: 1) how stalking is operationalized and 2) what sample is examined. We turn to these issues, and others, first starting with our review of the stalking victimization literature.   Note, our focus for the duration of this paper is on the dominant form of stalking; stalking that occurs within a relational context. Victims One of the questions surrounding gender differences in stalking research is whether women are more likely to be victims of stalking than men. Statistics clearly indicate that the majority of stalking cases often follows the rejection of an intimate relationship (Baum et al., 2009; Spitzberg Cupach, 2007; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998). Historically, intimate aggression (e.g., domestic violence, acquaintance rape) has been perceived as synonymous with violence against women because it was believed that the majority of intimate aggression targeted women.   However, this belief that victims of intimate aggression are disproportionately female has been controversial (see Archer, 2000). Likewise, we find that the assertion that stalking victims are predominantly women is not without its controversy.   In the first US national study of stalking victimization, Tjaden and Thoennes (1998) reported that 8% of women and 1.1% of men qualify qualified as stalking victims when the definition was limited to those who are were extremely afraid. The victimization rate climbs climbed to 13% of women and 2.2% of men when somewhat afraid is was used. Thus, a gender difference was still quite apparent when fear was a criterion. In contrast, the British Crime Survey (Budd Mattinson, 2000), which did not require any experiences of fear, reported that 4% of women and 1.7% of men were victims of persistent and unwanted attention. In a more recent US national survey, Baum et al. (2009) found that more stalking victims were women than men when using the legal definition that includes victim fear. In contrast, no gender difference emerged in harassment victimization, which does not include the fear requirement. Further, all of these studies show that women are more likely to be stalked by a prior intim ate than men, who are equally likely to be stalked by acquaintances or intimates.   When focusing on unwanted pursuits, which can include stalking, in the relational contextS studies examining unwanted pursuit have to grapple with definitional issues as well as issues of sample. Studies of unwanted pursuit and ORI are primarily conducted among American college students and have often found few or small gender differences in rates of unwanted pursuit victimization. Among US college students, women and men who rejected a romantic relationship did not differ in their reports of experiencing unwanted pursuit behaviors, such as following and threats of physical assault (e.g., Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000; Phillips et al., 2004; Sinclair Frieze, 2000; Spitzberg, Nicastro, Cousins, 1998). When differences are found, they may be minimal.Overall, Spitzberg et al.s (2010) latest meta-analysis of US college students who experienced persistent pursuit found that women were 55% more likely to have been pursued than men. Comparing these statistics with national statisti cs which find women 3-7 times more likely to be stalked, a difference of .55 seems minimal.   Clearly how one concludes whether someone is a victim of stalking depends not only on how one asks the question (requiring fear or not) but who one is asking (college sample vs. national sample). Yet, it seems safe to conclude that women do outnumber men when it comes to victimization rates. To Fear or Not to Fear Where consistent gender differences have been found is that women are more likely to view unwanted pursuit as threatening (Cupach Spitzberg, 2000; Spitzberg et al., 2010). The inclusion of fear appears to decrease prevalence rates for men, as men are less likely to report fear than are women (Bjerregaard, 2000; Cupach Spitzberg, 2000; Davis, Ace, Andra, 2000; Emerson et al., 1998; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a).   This difference in reports of fear could be due to men actually not feeling afraid, only reporting they are not afraid, or experiencing less severe stalking behavior. It is difficult to parse the true reason. In general, men appear less willing to report fear due to socially desirable responding (Sutton Farrall, 2005) and men discount their risk of victimization (Stanko Hobdell, 1993).   Also, Mmany male victims of stalking do not perceive any threat from their pursuers and therefore do not identify their experience as stalking (Tjaden, Thoennes, Allison, 2000 ; Sheridan, et al., 2002). Male victims of interpersonal violence report they are more likely to react with laughter than are women (Romito Grassi, 2007) and men discount their risk of victimization (Stanko Hobdell, 1993). Likewise, Emerson, Ferris, and Gardners (1998) US community sample of victims revealed that men felt less vulnerable and threatened than did women. Men who do seek protection from their ex-girlfriends may experience informal social sanctions (Hall, 1998) and be treated with contempt or laughter by legal professionals (Purcell, PathÃÆ' ©, Mullen, 2001). Accordingly, some have argued that the laws emphasis on fear reduces male prevalence rates (Tjaden et al., 2000) and may lead people to discount male victims who may actually need assistance from law enforcement (Baum et. al, 2009; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998). Emphasizing fear in stalking definitions may also affect womens reporting of intimate partner stalking. Stalking targeting women is primarily perpetrated by intimates (Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a), but women are paradoxically more afraid of strangers (Pain, 1996). For example, Dietz and Martin (2007) found that women were more afraid of strangers than of boyfriends. Also, Dunn (1999) demonstrated how a group of sorority women reported that they would feel anxious if a man suddenly showed up at their doorstep, but found it romantic and flattering if he showed up with flowers especially when he was . The women also felt more flattered byan ex-partner, s than byrather than a casual dates engaging in the same behaviors. Women may thus be more likely than men to minimize unwanted pursuit when it can be interpreted as romantic (Dunn, 1999; Emerson et al., 1998; Lee, 1998), while men may be more dismissive in general. Frequency counts of stalking thus may not tell the whole story of stalking vi ctimization. For example, general population samples in the UK and the US (Budd Mattinson, 2000; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a) find that women are victims of intimate partner stalking, while men are equally likely to be stalked by partners and acquaintances (exception: Purcell et al.s, 2001 Australian clinical sample); so while it is true that intimate partner stalking is the most prevalent type, there are somewhat differential experiences for women and men. Consequences Coping Even if it is the case that men and women may be targeted in equal numbers by unwanted pursuit behaviors (Bjerregaard, 2000; Haugaard Seri, 2004; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000; Spitzberg et al., 1998), there are differences in the impact of that unwanted attention. Stalking victims report a wide range of negative consequences, including psychological health problems (e.g., depression, anxiety, PTSD symptomotology), physical health problems (e.g., disturbances in appetite and sleep, headaches, nausea, and damage from the perpetrator), economic losses (e.g., spending money on protective efforts, lost wages, and expenses), and social losses (e.g., losing touch with friends, getting unlisted phone numbers, reducing social activities) (see Bjerregaard, 2000; Centers for Disease Control, 2003; Davis et al., 2002; Dressing, Kuehner, Gass, 2005; Kamphuis Emmelkamp, 2001; PathÃÆ' © Mullen, 1997; Sheridan, Davies, Boon, 2001). Even if it is the case that men and women may be targ eted in equal numbers by unwanted pursuit behaviors (Bjerregaard, 2000; Haugaard Seri, 2004; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000; Spitzberg et al., 1998), there are differences in the impact of that unwanted attention. Of these consequences, Davis et al. (2000) found that In addition to finding that female stalking victims had a higher risk of physical and mental health problems than male victims.   Further,, once again highlighting the importance of fear, Davis et al. (2000) found that greater fear was associated with greater health problems for women, but not for men. Also, Bjerregaard (2000) found that female victims of stalking were more likely to have been physically harmed by their stalker than were male victims, and reported greater impact on their emotional health.   It may seem as if one could draw the conclusion that women suffer greater health consequences (Jordan, 2009), but this conclusion is not without its exceptions (Pimlott-Kubiak Cortina, 2003; Wigm an, 2009) Stalking is also comorbid with physical, sexual, and psychological abuse female stalking victims experience (Brewster, 2003; Coleman, 1997; Jordan, Wilcox, Pritchard, 2007; Logan, Leukefeld, Walker, 2000; Mechanic, Uhlmansick, Weaver, Resick, 2000; Spitzberg Rhea, 1999; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998). Among battered women, Mechanic and colleagues (Mechanic et al., 2000; Mechanic et al., 2002) have found that experiencing stalking contributes to higher levels of depression, fear, and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) than physical abuse alone. TRANSITION NEEDED.   Stalking victims take a variety of steps to protect themselves, including confronting the stalker (or having a third party do so), changing their home, school, or workplace, or seeking a protection order (PathÃÆ' © Mullen, 1997; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a). Some of the most common coping tactics for stalking victims involve a passive strategy, with tactics like ignoring or otherwise minimizing the problem (college students, Amar Alexy, 2010, Cupach Spitzberg, 2000; Fremouw et al., 1997; Jason, Reichler, Easton, Neal, Wilson, 1984, self-identified victims in a Dutch community Kamphpuis, Emmelkamp, Bartak, 2003). Women are more likely than men to seek help in general. In particular, women are more likely than men to seek counseling and to file a protection order (Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a), and to take more security precautions, including avoiding people or places (Budd Mattinson, 2000), and to confide in a close friend or family member for help (Spitzb erg et al., 1998). In their study on unwanted pursuit in US college students, Cupach and Spitzberg (2000) found that women reported more interaction (e.g., yelled at the person), and protection (e.g., called the police), and less retaliation (e.g., threatened physical harm) than men. Both genders coped using evasion (e.g., ignored them). However, while men and women had different help-seeking patterns, the differences themselves were very small (Cupach Spitzberg, 2000; Spitzberg, 2002). In sum, gender differences emerge in more severe experiences, which usually involve a legally-defined fearful victim found in general population samples and those drawn from clinical or forensic populations (Baum, Catalano, Rand, Rose, 2009; Bjerregaard, 2000; Sheridan, Gillett, Davies, 2002 vs. Sheridan, Davies, Boon, 2001; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998). In contrast, studies employing college student samples that use a non-fear based definition often do not find such gender differences (Cupach Spitzberg, 1998, 2000; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000; Phillips et al., 2004; Purcell, PathÃÆ' ©, Mullen, 2002). Meta-analyses have shown that clinical and forensic samples do have higher prevalence rates than student or community samples; clinical and forensic samples also reveal a stronger pattern of male perpetrators and female victims (Spitzberg, 2002; Spitzberg Cupach, 2007; Spitzberg, Cupach, Ciceraro, 2010).   We may conclude that there are meaningful gender differences in the experience of stalking, but some of these differences may be minimal (Spitzberg et al., 2010). Perpetrators When it comes to examining gender differences in stalking perpetration, we are confronted with some of the same issues.   It makes a difference whether we are examining stalking or, more broadly, unwanted pursuit behaviors.   It also matters which sample is being examined.   However, gender differences in rates of perpetration seem easier to come by.   The issue of whether men stalk more than women is subject to one of the problems that drive questions of victimization: which samples we study. The issue of whether stalking is operationalized using the requirement that victims feel fear is trickier. We cant use the same standard with perpetrators, who may not be able or willing to convey whether their victim was fearful. While we may assume that aggressive stalking behaviors like vandalism, threats, and physical harm are more severe than showing up unexpectedly or repeated phone calls, the meaning and impact of these behaviors may be similar. Depending upo n the context of the behavior, even excessive declarations of love may lead to probable cause for fear (Emerson et al. 1998). However, as with victimization studies, males and females in some college student samples report no gender differences in engaging in unwanted pursuit behaviors toward an intimate partner (Cupach Spitzberg, 2000; Dutton Winstead, 2006; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000; Sinclair Frieze, 2000). For example, Baum et al.s (2009) found in the data from a US national US survey revealed that approximately 60% of stalkers were male, 28% were female, and the rest were unable to be identified by their victim. Overall, Spitzberg and Cupachs (2003) meta-analysis found that males make up 82% of stalkers, while females represent 18% of stalkers. HoweverIn sum, the most recent meta-analysis of stalking and unwanted pursuit found that 23.90% of men have perpetrated stalking behavior, while compared to 11.92% of women did so (Spitzberg Cupach, 2010). However, as with victimization studies, some college student surveys reveal no gender differences in engaging in unwanted pursuit behaviors toward an intimate partner (Cupach Spitzberg, 2000; Dutton Winstead, 2006; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000; Sinclair Frieze, 2000). College students frequently report engaging in unwanted pursuit behaviors, with up to 99% doing at least one (Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000; Sinclair Frieze, 2000). Between 30 and 36% of Davis et al.s (2000) US college student sample reported engaging in one to five acts, and 7 to 10% reported six or more. The most frequent behaviors are various forms of unwanted communication and showing up at work/home/school. Aggressive pursuit behaviors are more infrequent (Davis et al., 2000; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000). In general, unwanted pursuit perpetration in college students involves similar numbers of male and female perpetrators, while stalking among general or clinical populations is predominant ly perpetrated by men (Allen, Swan, Raghavan, 2009; Baum et al., 2009; Budd Mattinson, 2000; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a). This pattern parallels the findings regarding dating and domestic violence perpetration. Like the pattern between unwanted pursuit and stalking, dating violence and domestic violence involve similar behaviors with differing prevalence rates, predictors of perpetration, and consequences for women and men (Archer, 2000; Bookwala, Frieze, Smith, Ryan, 1992). In this sense, less severe levels of unwanted pursuit or harassment may mirror Johnsons (1995) category of common couple violence, while more severe levels of stalking equal intimate terrorism (Johnson Ferraro, 2000). The debate of whether gender shapes the experience of IPV leads to research comparing the quantity of male and female victims and perpetrators, but also whether experiences are qualitatively different. In other words, are there gender differences in who perpetrators stalk; their choice of stalking behaviors, and their motivations? Types of Behaviors There is some evidence that women and men engage in slightly different individual stalking behaviors. In both forensic and college student samples in the US and Australia, men are more likely to make in-person contact (e.g., approach behavior; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000; Sinclair Frieze, 2000), to follow their victims or loiter (Purcell et al., 2001; Purcell et al., 2010), and to inflict property damage (Purcell et al., 2010). Women, on the other hand, are more likely to engage in behaviors that do not confront the target face-to-face, such as making unwanted calls or leaving unwanted phone messages (Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000; Purcell et al., 2001; Purcell et al., 2010), spreading rumors, or employing others in harassing the victim (Purcell et al., 2010). These patterns are not universal, however, as Dutton and Winstead (2006)s US college student sample found that women reported more monitoring and physically hurting their targets than men. In terms of cyberstalking behaviors,. Burke, Wallen, Vail-Smith, and Knox (2011) found that US college student men were more likely than women to report experiencing and engaging in the use of spyware, photos, and cameras to monitor and pursue their partner (e.g., using GPS devices, web cams, and spyware to monitor their partner). In contrast, college student women were more likely to report excessive communication and checking behaviors (e.g., checking cell phone and e-mail histories, making excessive phone calls and e-mails, checking social networking sites, and using their partners passwords).. However, in a study on pursuit behaviors perpetrated on Facebook, Lyndon, Bonds-Raacke, and Cratty (in press) found no gender differences in US college students   in the three types of behaviors people perpetrated on Facebook to harass their ex-partner: covert provocation (20-54%; e.g., post poetry or lyrics in status updates to taunt ex-partner), venting (7-11%; e.g., write inapprop riate or mean things about ex-partner on Facebook), and public harassment (3-10%; e.g., create a false Facebook profile of ex-partner). Thus far the ambiguity about whether gender differences exist in cyberpursuit appears to mirror the findings regarding unwanted pursuit behaviors for women and men, but we need more research on using technology to stalkcyberstalking, especially with perpetrators. One of the most pressing questions regarding stalking is when it might escalate into physically violent behaviors.   Most stalkers, however, are not violent (Purcell, PathÃÆ' ©, Mullen, 2004; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a); half of all stalking cases involve a threat and just under a third of all stalking cases involve physical violence. Both male and female stalkers are more likely to be violent if they are an ex-intimate, are younger than 30 years of age, have less than a high school education, and have made prior threats (Rosenfeld Harmon, 2002). Other predictors of stalking-related violence include prior criminal convictions (Mullen et al., 1999; Palrea, Zona, Lane, Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 1999). Most stalkers, however, are not violent (Purcell, PathÃÆ' ©, Mullen, 2004; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a); half of all stalking cases involve a threat and just under a third of all stalking cases involve physical violence. Evidence is mixed as to whether there are gender differences in those who are likely to become violent. Some research using US college student samples suggest that female unwanted pursuit perpetrators of unwanted pursuit engage in more mild aggressive stalking behaviors than men (Dutton Winstead, 2006; Williams Frieze, 2005). However, other college student samples reveal no gender differences in perpetration of   stalking violence (Haugaard Seri, 2004; Sinclair Frieze, 2002). StillIn contrast, others find that men are more likely than women to threaten their victims (Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000) and to escalate from threats to physical assaults, as reported in both Australian forensic samples (Purcell et al., 2001) and meta-analyses (Spitzberg Cupach, 2007). Former romantic partnersEx-intimate stalkers, who are mostly male, are the most violent compared to other categories of stalkers, a pattern that is consistent across culture and sample type (McEwan, Mullen, MacKenzie, Ogloff, 2009; Meloy, Davis, Lovette, 2001; Mohandie, Meloy, McGowan, Williams, 2006; Palrea, Zona, Lane, Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 1999; Sheridan, Blaauw, Davies, 2003; Sheridan Davies, 2001). Given that men are more likely to stalk ex-intimate partners than women (Spitzberg Cupach, 2007; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998), it seems that we should find more male-perpetrated stalking violence. However, other college student samples and forensic samples reveal no gender differences in perpetration of   stalking violence (Haugaard Seri, 2004; Sinclair Frieze, 2002). HoweverFor example, current evidence with forensic samples shows no gender differences in actual stalking cases regarding stalker lethality (Mullen et al., 1999; Purcell et al., 2001; Rosenfeld Lewis, 2005).   Specifically, both male and female stalkers can turn violent if they are an ex-intimate, are younger than 30 years of age, have less than a high school education, and have made prior threats (Rosenfeld Harmon, 2002).   Evidently, more research is needed to sort out whether gender is a useful predictor of extreme stalking and violence. Motivationsand Violence While there are some differences in how men and women pursue, there also may be some differences in their motivations for doing so. Victims in general population studies often attribute the stalkers motivation to attempts to keep them in a relationship, as well as a desire to control the them (Budd Mattinson, 2000; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a). Mullen and colleagues (1999) have classified their samples of clinical and forensic stalkers in Australia into five motivation groups: rejected, intimacy-seeker, incompetent suitor, resentful, and predatory types, but have not found consistent gender differences between the groups. Stalking behaviors appear to be motivated most commonly by intimacy (e.g., a desire for reconciliation and feelings of love), with the second most common motive being aggression retaliation (e.g., a desire for revenge; Spitzberg Cupach, 2007). In fact, perpetrators often report both motives for reconciliation of a relationship and for revenge (Mullen, PathÃÆ' ©, Pu rcell, Stuart, 1999; Spitzberg Cupach, 2007). These Cclinical/forensic rejected stalkers who are motivated by a mix of reconciliation and revenge needs have a higher likelihood of assaulting their victims than other motivation groups (Mullen et al., 2006). Gender differences in motivations for stalking have been noted in juvenile forensic samples. Juvenile female stalkers more likely to be motivated by bullying and retaliation whereas juvenile male stalkers were have been found to be motivated more by rejection and sexual predation (Purcell et al., 2010).   In a 2001 study of adult stalkers in Australia, Purcell and colleagues found that women were more likely to target professional acquaintances and less likely to target strangers than men. Nonetheless, the majority of female stalkers were still clearly motivated by the desire to establish intimacy with their target, whereas mens motivations were diverse, spreading across the five categories. Likewise, in Meloys (2003) study of 82 female stalkers from the US, Canada, and Australia, he found the female stalkers were more likely to be motivated by a desire to establish intimacy, whereas men were known to stalk to restore intimacy. Ultimately, Tthere is a large gap in stalking mot ivation research, particularly using non-forensic samples.   Clinical/forensic rejected stalkers who are motivated by a mix of reconciliation and revenge needs have a higher likelihood of assaulting their victims than other motivation groups (Mullen et al., 2006). Both male and female stalkers are more likely to be violent if they are an ex-intimate, are younger than 30 years of age, have less than a high school education, and have made prior threats (Rosenfeld Harmon, 2002). Other predictors of stalking-related violence include prior criminal convictions (Mullen et al., 1999; Palrea, Zona, Lane, Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 1999). Most stalkers, however, are not violent (Purcell, PathÃÆ' ©, Mullen, 2004; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a); half of all stalking cases involve a threat and just under a third of all stalking cases involve physical violence. Evidence is mixed as to whether there are gender differences in those who are likely to become violent. Some research using US college student samples suggest that female unwanted pursuit perpetrators engage in more mild aggressive stalking behaviors (Dutton Winstead, 2006; Williams Frieze, 2005). However, other college student samples reveal no gender differences in perpetration of   stalking violence (Haugaard Seri, 2004; Sinclair Frieze, 2002). Still others find that men are more likely than women to threaten their victims (Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000) and to escalate from threats to physical assaults, as reported in both Australian forensic samples (Purcell et al., 2001) and meta-analyses (Spitzberg Cupach, 2007). Former romantic partners are the most violent compared to other categories of stalkers, a pattern that is consistent across culture and sample type (McEwan, Mullen, MacKenzie, Ogloff, 2009; Meloy, Davis, Lovette, 2001; Mohandie, Meloy, McGowan, Wi lliams, 2006; Palrea, Zona, Lane, Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 1999; Sheridan, Blaauw, Davies, 2003; Sheridan Davies, 2001). Given that men are more likely to stalk ex-intimate partners than women (Spitzberg Cupach, 2007; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998), it seems that we should find more male-perpetrated stalking violence. However, current evidence with forensic samples shows no gender differences in actual stalking cases regarding stalker lethality (Mullen et al., 1999; Purcell et al., 2001; Rosenfeld Lewis, 2005).   Single surveys of Ccollege student samples ofabout unwanted pursuit and obsessive relational intrusion are the least likely to find fewgender differences in perpetration rates. However, meta-analyses and US and UK general population studies find that men are more likely to be stalking perpetrators than women, regardless of the victims gender (Baum et al., 2009; Budd Mattinson, 2000; Spitzberg, 2002; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a).While the size of this gender difference varies, it is consistent across methodologies (Spitzberg Cupach, 2003). There are some gender differences in the types of stalking and cyberstalking perpetrationbehaviors e.g., men being more direct and women more indirect and in pursuers motives women being predominantly motivated by intimacy-seeking and men having a broader array of motives. However, we need more research on perpetration to better understand if gender is an important predictor to consider, especially with regard to the likelihood of escalation.    with a variety of samples and with better means of differentiating unwanted pursuit from stalking. Perceptions of stalking As attention to the problem of stalking has increased, so has public opinion been shaped.   However, there is not a true consensus in these opinions. Rather, people vary in how much they understand about stalking.   It can be unclear when the line between   normal relational pursuit and stalking is crossed (Dunn, 1999; Emerson et al., 1998; Lee, 1998; Sinclair Frieze, 2000, 2005). Perceptions can also diverge regarding multiple issues including: 1) which behaviors qualify as stalking, 2) how many behavior are enough to represent a course of conduct, 3) is stalking really serious, 4) what   perpetrator intent may have been, 5) whether and how we should incorporate victim fear levels to judge stalking severity, and 6) what is real stalking (e.g., stranger vs. acquaintance stalking). Within each of these issues, gender may influence the perceptions people hold, both lay persons and legal decision-makers. Stalking in the Eye of the Beholder: The Role of Perceiver Gender The literature is still mixed as to whether men and women differ in judgments to use a label of stalking. Some researchers report that men and women do not differ in terms of which behaviors qualify as stalking (e.g., Kinkade, Burns, Fuentes, 2005; Phillips et al., 2004, in Experiment 1; Sheridan Davies, 2001; Sheridan, Davies, Boon, 2001; Sheridan et al., 2002; Sheridan, Gillet, Davies, Blaauw, Patel, 2003). Others have found that female participants are more likely than male participants to identify certain behaviors as stalking (e.g., Dennison Thomson, 2002; Hills Taplin, 1998; Phillips et al., 2004, in Experiment 2; Yanowitz, 2006). Clearer gender differences seem to emerge whenever men and women are judging prototypical stalking cases that involve a female victim and a male perpetrator. Laypersons may not be the best judge of what constitutes stalking; even victims own definitions of stalking may not match the legal requirements (Tjaden et al., 2000). Where relatively consistent gender differences do emerge are in questions of incident seriousness and whether the perpetrator actually intended to cause harm or fear. Female participants more often view stalking behaviors as more serious than male observers, especially if a scenario depicted a male perpetrator stalking a female victim (as found in both US and Australian college student samples, e.g., Cupach Spitzberg, 2000; Dennison, 2007; Dennison Thomson, 2002; Hills Taplin, 1998). For example, in Cupach and Spitzbergs (2000) US college student sample, women judged a variety of pursuit behaviors as more annoying, upsetting, threatening, and violating than did men. Women are also more likely to judge that the perpetrator intended to cause harm and fear (Dennison Thomson, 2002), and feel to call for police intervention is needed, and to feel afraidin response to the stalking (as found in an Australian community-based sample, Hills Taplin, 1998). However, it should be noted that in Dennisons (2007) study with Australian college students that without explicit evidence of intent, male and female observers perception of seriousness was the same. These data show that the question is more complex than that of whether there are perceiver gender differences in labeling stalking; participants may simultaneously consider gender, prior relationship, and intent in judgments of seriousness, threat, and danger to the victim. What AboutVictim and Perpetrator Gender? Several researchers in US, UK, and Australian using student samples have found that participants judge male and female stalking victims differently (Dennison Thomson, 2002; Phillips et al., 2004; Sheridan et al., 2003; Sheridan Scott, 2010), while similar samples have found no differences in judgments of male and female victims (Kinkade et al., 2005; Phillips et al., 2004; Sheridan, Gillett Davies, 2002). Generally we find that the gender of the perpetrator does not influence peoples perceptions of whether behaviors constitute stalking (e.g., Dennison, 2007; Kinkade et al., 2005; Phillips et al., 2004; Sheridan et al., 2003). However, we do find gender differences for slightly different questions. In cases of heterosexual intimate partner stalking, male stalkers are seen as more serious, threatening, and injurious than female stalkers (e.g., Cupach Spitzberg, 2004; Phillips et al., 2004; Sheridan et al., 2003; Sheridan Scott, 2010). In contrast, Mmale victims of stalking are gen erally judged both as more responsible for their own victimization and able to handle the situation more than female victims (e.g., Hall, 1998; Phillips et al., 2004; Purcell et al., 2001; Sheridan et al., 2003). In sum, womens pursuit of men is judged as less serious than mens pursuit of women (Sheridan et al., 2003; Sheridan Scott, 2010). On the other hand, womens obsessive pursuit, particularly aggressive pursuit, may be seen as more unnatural because it is a violation of gender norms. Like girls who engage in physical or verbal aggression and are subsequently more socially rejected than aggressive boys (Bukowski, Gauze, Hoza, Newcomb, 1993; Kerestes Milanovic, 2006; Salmivalli, Kaukianen, Lagerspetz, 2000), male pursuers may be viewed more leniently favorably than female pursuers in unwanted pursuit scenarios. As suggested by de Becker (1996, p. 38) that If a man in the movies wants a sexual encounter or applies persistence, hes a regular, everyday guy, but if a woman does the same thing, shes a maniac or a killer. After all, his behavior falls within the game of love and courtship processes, but the female pursuer is stepping outside of proscribed gender roles, and thus may be viewed more negatively for violating norms. Indeed, in Dunns (1999, 2002) study, fraternity men characterized the unwanted pursuit behavi ors of a woman as pathetic and disturbed whereas sorority women described the actions of a male pursuer in more romantic terms. Wayne and colleagues (2001; see also Wayne, 2000) have found that women harassing men were more likely to be found guilty than the inverse in a hostile work environment case.Accordingly, male pursuers might be seen as more normative than female pursuers.   However, men as stalkers are deemed more of a threat than women. The Thin Blue Line Between Love and Hate: Perceptions of Stalking in the Legal System Thus far, the review of perceptions has focused on studies of college students, or lay person, samples. It is critical that more research be conducted with law enforcement professionals.Many law officials believe that the anti-stalking laws are effective and are serving to prevent a great deal of stalking behaviors (National Institute of Justice, 1996). Yet reports from victims tend to tell a different story: that law enforcement doesnt seem to take stalking very seriously. While one ideally hopes that stalking cases are judged on their own merits, it is clear that certain biases come into play (Baum et al., 2009; Kamphuis et al., 2005; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a). When men and women do need assistance or legal intervention, the legal system may not regard their situation as serious. Law enforcement personnel might not know how to differentiate stalking from domestic violence, especially when justice system representatives tend to rely on physical harm rather than psychological harm whe n assessing the seriousness of a situation (Finch, 2001). As with lay person perceptions, law enforcement officers judgments appear to be swayed by such factors as the gender of the victim or perpetrator and their relationship. Some police officers feel that stranger stalking is more serious than intimate partner stalking resulting in more need for intervention and arrest of a of stranger stalkers than intimates (Farrell et al., 2000; Logan, Walker, Stewart, Allen, 2006; Modena Group on Stalking, 2005). Conviction rates are higher for stranger stalkers, even though intimate partner stalkers are more violent (Sheridan Davies, 2001). Further, police officers are not always able to correctly identify cases of intimate partner stalking (Klein, Salomon, Huntington, Dubois, Lang, 2009; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a). Klein et al. (2009) reviewed all the reports of domestic violence filed in Rhode Island for a year and found that for every incident police accurately identified as a stalking case, researchers found another twenty that also fit the leg al definition of stalking. Police more readily identified cases as stalking when the perpetrator was male (Klein et al., 2009).   Only one study has experimentally law enforcement personnels judgments of stalking, conducted with four different European samples of police officers (Kamphuis et al., 2005).These police officers were able to discriminate between stalking and non-stalking scenarios, but they were biased in other ways. Specifically, Italian and Belgian police officers were more likely to blame on the victim for the stalking and endorse stalking myths, such a belief that stalking is flattering.   Italian police officers were the least sensitive officials to victim reports of stalking.   As a result, stalking victims may not receive appropriate police intervention and protection. Victims report that the perpetrator ended the stalking because of informal, rather than formal interventions by law enforcement (Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a). Of the people who reported stalking, only 8% reported that the perpetrator was arrested and 20% said that the police did not take any action at all. Not all are unsatisfied, however, as 61% victims of stalking in the UK who reported the stalking to police said that they were satisfied with the police intervention (Budd Mattinson, 2000). The victims gender also appears to influence the way that police officers respond to stalking situations once the crime is identified. US general population studies find that victims report that law enforcement officials provided female stalking victims with more information about protective services than to male victims; officials are also more likely to arrest stalking perpetrators when the victim was a woman. These results are consistent with the perception that male victims should be man enough to take care of themselves. Female stalking victims are also more likely to have their stalkers criminally prosecuted than male victims, even though men and women are equally likely to report stalking to the police (Baum et. al, 2009; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a). In a US forensic sample of victims who took their cases through the court system, women who suffered both domestic violence and stalking from former intimate partners were more likely to employ the help of law enforcement to prevent future violence and stalking instances. While there was a decrease in physical violence after police intervention for these victims, stalking behaviors lasted longer in both strength and frequency (Melton, 2007).   Only one study has experimentally examined law enforcement personnels judgments of stalking with four different European samples of police officers (Kamphuis et al., 2005).These police officers were able to discriminate between stalking and non-stalking scenarios, but they were biased in other ways. Specifically, Kamphuis et al. (2005) found that the attitudes these professional held about stalking (such as Stalkers only continue because they get some sort of encouragement) were the strongest predictor (beyond gender, profession, country, existence of anti-stalking statutes) of their likelihood to label stalking behavior, and, if labeled, to normalize instead of criminalize stalking behavior.   As this research is relatively new, it remains to be seen whether attitudes such as misconceptions about stalking do consistently explain when gender differences might appear.   Such is one of the contributions of one of the articles in the present special issue.   We turn to the new articles now. Contributions of the current issue We have reviewed the current state of the literature regarding the role of gender in stalking research. We are able to make certain conclusions: that women are more likely to be stalked than are men; that men are more likely to be perpetrators; that fear is a strong determinant of the prevalence and perception of stalking, and that we have as many questions as answers in our review. This special issue hopes to clarify some of the equivocal findings and to extend our knowledge of mens and womens experiences with stalking in new and fruitful ways. The Centers for Disease Control reports that stalking results in $342 million a year of direct and indirect costs borne by society due to stalking, with $2.1 million on mental health care visits related to stalking. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2003). While there is some evidence that women experience more stalking-related health problems (Davis et al., 2002), but others have found no difference between mens and womens physical and psychological consequences of being stalked (Dressing, Kuhner, Gass, 2005). Sheridan and Lyndon (this issue) examine underlying connections between stalking and such consequences by considering the following relationships: 1) There are serious consequences to being stalked (CDC, 2003; Davis et al., 2002), 2) these consequences are more severe in intimate partner stalking than other types (Sheridan Davies, 2001; Thomas et al., 2008), and 3) women are more likely to be stalked by an intimate partner than are men (Budd Mattinson, 2000; Tjad en Thoennes, 1998a). In addition, the authors explore the link between gender, fear, and consequences in that women have higher levels of fear of crime than men (Fisher, 1995; Warr, 2000) and greater fear is associated with greater stalking-related health problems (Davis et al., 2002).   Thus, Sheridan and Lyndon test whether the level of fear and the perpetrator and the victims prior relationship better predicts the psychological, physical, social, and economic consequences to the victim than their gender, with a special emphasis on how fear may lead to gendered consequences. While most stalking does not result in violence (Purcell et al., 2004; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a), it may be deadly when present (McFarlane et al., 1999).One possible outcome of stalking is violence escalation. Although most stalking does not result in violence, Rresearchers have identified several risk factors for increased stalking-related violence, including a prior intimate relationship, prior threats, motivation to seek revenge, and perpetrator substance abuse (Rosenfeld Harmon, 2002; Rosenfeld Lewis, 2005). However, as noted above, Rresearchers have not consistently found gender differences in stalking violence (Budd Mattinson, 2000; PathÃÆ' © Mullen, 1997; Thomas, Purcell, PathÃÆ' ©, Mullen, 2008). Thompson et al. (this issue) examine stalking-related violence performed by college student intimate partner stalkers in Australia. The authors question whether we underestimate moderate violence by female stalkers and examine whether commonly held sociocultural beliefs ma y lead female perpetrators to justify their level of moderately violent behavior within the context of intimate partner stalking. Early discussions on stalking were spurred by the murder of an actress by an obsessed fan; the typical stalker, however, is not a crazed fan (Tjaden Thoennes, 1998). The other end of the spectrum of stalking are culturally-approved romantic tactics that may become stalking when they are unwanted (Emerson et al., 1998; Lee, 1998). To investigate where the typical perception of stalking lies within this spectrum, Yanowitz and Yanowitz (this issue) use open prompts to identify US college students stalking scripts. These scripts help to determine whether the prototypical stalking case is romantic or crazy and whether there are gender differences in perceptions of what constitutes a typical stalking incident. Sinclair (this issue) also examines peoples attitudes about what is typical about stalking cases.   Specifically, she examines how endorsement of stereotypes about stalking termed stalking myths may affect how we assign blame in potential stalking cases. She argues that endorsement of these beliefs could explain gender differences both gender of the perceiver and the genders of those involved in the stalking incident in perceptions of stalking cases.   Also examining perceptions of stalking cases, Cass and Rosay (this issue) explore how the incidenta case may make its way through the criminal justice system. Stalking victims in the US report dissatisfaction with the handling of their case throughout the legal process (Baum et al., 2009; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a). In this study, college students act as potential law enforcement officers and judge the extent to which potential stalking cases will be investigated, lead to an arrest, whether charges will be filed, the defendant convicted, and sentenced. Participants judgments are hypothesized to depend upon the target and offender gender, as well as their relationship. Dunlap et al. (this issue) takes the typical vignette study a step further by folding it into a mock juror study. Previous perception research asked people to judge whether they believed a set of behaviors constitute stalking. Dunlap et al. focus on legal judgments of a case of heterosexual intimate partner stalking that vary based on legal (fear expressed by the victim) and extra-legal (victim gender) factors. The authors test several explanations of why women and men may make differential legal judgments in stalking cases, including whether women will defensively blame female victims. Lastly, Oone of the ways this special issue adds to our knowledge is through contributing to our theoretical understanding of stalking. To date, much of stalking research has been problem-based instead of theory-based.   Integrating a theoretical approach could provide guidance for when gender differences may and may not be found. Duntley and Buss (this issue) outline how stalking may be shaped by evolutionary processes as a functional mating strategy. The authors hypothesize eight functions of stalking, including acquiring, guarding, and reacquiring a mate. While some functions apply equally well to men and women, others are more gendered.   The authors propose 30 falsifiable hypotheses to stimulate testing of the theory. Davis et al. (this issue) also provide needed theoretical guidance. The authors review relevant theories as they apply to stalking: relational goal pursuit theory (Cupach Spitzberg, 2004), adult attachment theory (Hazan Shaver, 1987), and coercive control theory (Dutton Goodman, 2005). In particular, Davis and colleagues use these theories to highlight the context, means, and motives of stalking for women and men, suggesting ways to integrate these theories, along with new gender-sensitive methods of measurement in new investigations. In sum, each article provides one more piece to the puzzle of understanding stalking.   From tackling the lingering issues of the importance of fear or biased attitudes in explaining gender differences to providing new theory-grounded directions for future research, we believe the present issue makes a valuable contribution to the field.   Hopefully the next decade will see as much of an exponential boom in stalking research as the last decade, and the present contributions will be a part of that advance.

Strength Debut Albums and Johnny Free Essays

Strength They are taking the casket away to the burial site. It is made of a dark maple wood with an arrangement of white roses on top. The preacher says only family can come. We will write a custom essay sample on Strength: Debut Albums and Johnny or any similar topic only for you Order Now So the son stands up and follows the casket to the burial site. He is wearing a gray shirt with a black coat and black pants. He doesn’t seem to be shaken up about the funeral. He is quiet and stays to himself. Once they reach the burial site he stands next to the casket as they begin to lower it. He just stares and begins to think about the memory that caused this. Johnny was sitting at the kitchen table watching his mother Anita, cleaning the dishes. She was wearing her tired blue shirt with the sleeves rolled up, beat up denims, and her hair in a low pony-tail. Anita’s favorite thing was to do the dishes. She always sang to herself while her blue eyes traveled out the window through the woods. She would think things of leaving and starting over. She never wanted Johnny to see herself that way but he did. He saw her sadness. Many times she would stare at the little Eiffel Tower statue that was on the window sill or look at her and her husband, Jacks’, wedding photo above the fireplace. The pictured showed a much younger, and happier Anita. The house was quiet. And Johnny liked moments like these. Moments that showed how cozy and peaceful their 700 square foot home could be instead of the tumble-down house it really was. It had a kitchen/den, two bedrooms, and a bath. Their family spent most of the time in the kitchen. It was painted a pale yellow, had a wooden table with three chairs, and had a window over the sink. It connected to a hallway which connected to the two rooms. All the rooms were small but the size didn’t really bother him, it was the only place he had known for his ten years. The house was light green with white shutters on the outside. The paint had faded so much that the home almost blended into the woods. Johnny didn’t have many neighbors but he had an imagination that was as vibrant and wild as the Salmon River a few miles away. He would sneak there sometimes when his mother would be sleeping and his father was at work. One day as the sun was rising over the river he began a story of a boy traveling through the woods and ending up in a far away land. It was a much peaceful, newer, land than the one he knew. He became friends with them and they allowed him to go back and bring one person back to live with them. He brought his mother. Anita finished the dishes and turned around to look at Johnny. â€Å"Alright young man, it’s time for bed. Your father will be home soon. † â€Å"Could you read me a story before bed? † â€Å"Sweetie, your father is almost home and you need to be in bed. † â€Å"Mama, please? † said Johnny. She looked at him; his big blue eyes, half covered by his unkempt hair, always won. They were her weakness. He was such a kind boy whose eyes always saw good, no matter the evil in front of him. â€Å"Okay† she said, â€Å"but it’s going to be a short one. † She told him a story of a blue eyed, brown haired boy who travels to a distant land to save a girl who is in trouble. In the story the boy had to learn that bravery isn’t just about doing what is right but also being able to sacrifice your feelings to do the right thing. As she neared the end of the story she heard her husband’s truck pull up. She hurriedly got to her feet and looked out the window. Her heart started to beat faster and there was a little bit of perspiration right above her brow. Johnny sat up and peered over her shoulder. They both looked and saw him and his gun fall out of their blue Ford F-150. Her husband picked up his gun and staggered towards the house. Anita turned around and tucked Johnny in. As she pulled away Johnny grabbed her hand, and in a very small but strong voice Johnny said, â€Å"Mama†¦ one day I’ll save you. I promise. † Anita stared. The car door slamming knocked Anita out of her trance. She walked out of Johnny’s room, wiped the few tears that had gathered at the corners of her eyes, and shut the door behind her. As Anita walked into the kitchen so did her husband Jack. He was a tall man who looked much older than he was. His skin was leathery and the tips of his hair were gray. His blue eyes which, used to hold so much promise, were now red with black sags under them. He and Anita meet in high school. They were in the same math class. Anita was failing math and Jack decided to help her with her studies. The friendship blossomed into a beautiful relationship. One time, when they were together, Jack gave Anita an Eiffel Tower statue and promised her that when he became a famous engineer he would take her there. This never happened though. Their junior year she got pregnant. They both dropped out to support their son. Jack was a loving man but as his dream got farther, the liquor bottle got closer. It became a continuous problem. Anita could count on one hand how many times she saw Jack without a whiskey bottle, in the past six months. The alcohol changed him, like many men, into a monster. â€Å"What’s wrong with you? † Jack asked while he threw his gun on the counter by the hallway and kicked off his old black boots. â€Å"Nothing, been cleaning all day. I’m a little tired I guess. How was work? † â€Å"Well, let’s see, I worked an eleven hour day, at a job that I hate, with a boss who doesn’t respect me, and I come home to a family that doesn’t appreciate me. Its just another day. † â€Å"Oh now, come on, you know that Johnny and I love-† â€Å"Love me? † Jack interrupted. â€Å"Is that why I come home to half the house a mess, no dinner on the table, no poured drink, and my son already asleep. It’s starting to get real old Anita. I’m not up for all these games, never have been. † †I’m not playing games with you Jack. I have worked all day too and I take care of our son. God I don’t understand why you get so paranoid. † â€Å"Don’t call me paranoid! Anita you don’t know when to shut the fuck up, do you? I am not paranoid you-† â€Å"You accuse me of everything! † Anita interrupted, â€Å"Last night we argued about how you think I am turning Johnny against you and how you think I am taking money. I think we know where the money is going. † Anita watched as Jack opened up the brown cupboard door, took out the whiskey, and poured himself a glass. There was no expression on Anita’s’ face but her heart was pounding. Jack stopped in mid swig and stared at her. â€Å"What the fuck is this? † â€Å"Here you go again Jack accusing me. † Anita tried very hard to put on an easy face but the rage in Jacks eyes seemed to be building with every second. His hand on the bottle became a vice. â€Å"What did I tell you about touching my whiskey? † â€Å"I didn’t touch your damn whiskey. † â€Å"You think because I’m drunk that I don’t taste the difference? You’ve done this before, Anita. † â€Å"Again with the para-â€Å" â€Å"Stop calling me paranoid! † Jack roared. All the blood in his entire body seemed to be at his face. The buttons on his blue and gray plaid shirt almost popped from his chest being out too far. He shut his eyes and took a breath. â€Å"Didn’t I tell you what was going to happen if you watered down any of my drinks again? † Jack said with an almost eerie calmness. Anita saw the familiar look in his eyes. Her body reacted in a way a deer’s’ does when they know what’s coming for them: heart racing, fixed stare, muscles tense. She took a deep breath and tried to relax herself. â€Å"Jack, sweetie, I didn’t touch your whiskey. I promise you. † â€Å"You think I’m dumb, don’t you? Ya know I try and be sweet and understanding, but you keep lying to me. Why do you do that? You know I can’t stand it when you do that. You say that you love me, and when you love someone you aren’t supposed to lie to them. You love me don’t you? † â€Å"Of course sweetie I love you. You mean the world to me. I don’t know-† â€Å"See, here you go again with those lies. It makes me angry. And what am I supposed to do? Just let you continue telling lies? We are raising a son together, and I don’t want Johnny to learn that habit. † The eerie calmness was still there, and Jack barely spoke above a whisper. He began streaming his fingers through her hair. He looked down at his bottle, and as his face rose again to meet hers it changed. He became a monster. â€Å"I told you I don’t like my whiskey being watered down. Is it that difficult to do as I say? † Jacks voice became louder and stronger. He grabbed Anita’s hair with his fists and shoved her head onto the table. The skin around her scalp was stretching from the force of the grip. Her arms were against the edge of the table trying to push herself up, but he was too strong. Tightening his grip, he bent down to have his face beside hers. â€Å"You have to learn. You fucking bitch, you have to learn. † â€Å"Jack please, I didn’t do it. Your hurting me, sweetie, stop. † As she spoke, the force of Jacks hand against her face became stronger towards the wooden table. Her heart was pounding and she was looking for any possible way to protect herself. Tears started rolling down her face. She didn’t know what to do. She knew he wasn’t going to believe her and he was so much stronger than her. She finally said the only thing she felt could stop it, â€Å"I’m sorry. † He eased up on his force but still kept a grip on her hair. â€Å"What did you say? † â€Å"I’m sorry. It’s just, just your drinking changes you. And I like the old Jack. Honey I’m sorry. Please let me go. Anita’s voice was that of an innocent child. Her eyes locked on his. â€Å"Now, now doesn’t that feel better? † Jack said as he straightened his back and looked down at her. â€Å"Doesn’t it feel good to tell the truth and admit your problems? See, I am helping. But honey that doesn’t change the fact of what you did. You’ve done it before, and it’s becoming a habit. † At that moment his full force returned. He lifted her head and slammed it into the table. Anita wailed in pain. Above her temple she started bleeding. He pulled her off the table and started dragging her across the white laminate floor with her hair. As he dragged her to the hallway entrance, towards the bedroom, he looked up for the first time and let go of his wife’s hair. She turned around and slowly stood up. They saw Johnny standing in the hallway. Johnny’s eyes were red with dried tears on his checks. He stood as if he were seven feet tall with all the confidence in the world, and just stared at his father. Anita looked at his sweet eyes, that for the first time realized there was no good to be seen in his father. Jack wasn’t looking at Johnny’s eyes like his wife was, he was looking at the pistol Johnny was holding up with both his hands. Johnny witnessed everything like he always had. When he heard his mothers screams he got out of bed and walked towards the kitchen. He saw blood running down his mothers face and couldn’t control the anger that was rising in him. As his father slammed his mothers head into the wooden table, a second time, he grabbed the gun that was on the counter. Holding the cold unfamiliar metal in his hands, he stood tall and pointed it at his father. â€Å"Sweetheart,† his mother said, â€Å"everything is going to be okay. Alright? Come here, let me hold you. † Johnny didn’t say a word but kept starring at his father. â€Å"Son give the gun to me. † I gave mama a promise. † Johnny spoke with no hesitation. â€Å"Sweetie, it’s okay to break promises. This isn’t your battle to fight. This isn’t a story. Honey just look at me. † Anita was scared for her sons life. Neither her or her husband had taught him to shoot a gun. She was a fraid the he would end up hurting himself. Johnny turned his head to look at his mother. He saw that the blood on her face was curving around the fake smile she was trying to make. As he looked down to see some of her hair on the floor, his father took the opportunity and lunged for Johnny. His grip wasn’t as tight anymore and he felt the gun falling out of his hands. His father picked him up and threw him against the wall. Jack started yelling and slapped Johnny across the face. Johnny began to cry. Anita felt the breaking point. Hearing her son cry was the key to unveiling her eyes. She knew, the only reason she stayed alive, was to protect Johnny. Her heart began to race. All the lost opportunities of running away led to this moment. Her blood started pumping faster. She would be damned if she let this happen to her son. She picked up the gun and thought back to the moment her daddy taught her to shoot. â€Å"Jack, put him down. † He didn’t turn around or even acknowledge her. â€Å"Jack! Jack turned around and dropped his son. â€Å"Anita, baby what are you-â€Å" Anita shot a bullet to the left of him. â€Å"Johnny come here. † Johnny got up from the floor and stood behind his mother. He had one hand around her leg and used the other to wipe tears from his eyes. â€Å"Sweetie, go outside. Mama will be there soon. â₠¬  Johnny walked out of the kitchen door and sat by the truck. â€Å"I’m done with this Jack. I am his mother, I have to protect him. † Her grip became tighter. â€Å"What are you going to do? You have no job, no education. You need me. † Jack tried to seem calm but the fear in his eyes gave him away. â€Å"I don’t need you. I will find my own way. † Anita raised the gun and pointed it straight at his head. â€Å"I hope your son can live with the fact that his mother is a coward and a murderer. When the kids ridicule him I hope you think of me. † Bam She did it. She put a bullet through his head and finally shut the bastard up. He laid there with a pool of blood flowing out of his head. Blood was everywhere. It was splattered all over the walls and cabinets. Her hearing slowly came back to her in a wave. She finally lowered her gun and just starred. Part of her couldn’t believe what she had done. And she wondered if she was strong enough to handle it. She remembered Johnny sitting outside. She tossed her thoughts aside and walked to the bathroom. She looked in the mirror. Her shirt was ripped, she had patches of hair missing, and her face was covered in blood. She cleaned herself up and walked out to Johnny. Johnny ran into his mother’s arms. â€Å"Mama I’m sorry. â€Å"Honey, you look at me. Don’t cry anymore. You did nothing wrong. Okay? We are going to call the police and you will tell them the absolute truth. Baby everything will be fine. † â€Å"Okay mama, ill be strong for you. † Why could you never let those words go? Johnny thought to himself. I hope your son can live with the fact that his mother is a coward and a murderer. † I know you loved me and you did what you had to do. You protected me. How could that man still have control over you after all this time? I tried to be strong and hide my tears forr you but you kept sinking further away. Maybe you knew that you wouldn’ t be able to handle it but you did it anyway? Like what you taught me in those stories when I was young: bravery isn’t just about doing what is right but also being able to sacrifice your feelings to do the right thing. Johnny lowered his head and, for the first time in eight years, cried. How to cite Strength: Debut Albums and Johnny, Papers

Report on Chorus Limited

Question: Explain Financial analysis of chorus limited. Answer: Part A 1Executive summary: Chorus limited has been a provider of the telecommunication services which has been listed in NZX 50 index i.e. on newzealand stock exchange Also it has hire majority telephone lines as well the exchange equipments. During the year 2008, Chorus limited has come as a separate business unit. In the year 2011, it has been demerged from the telecom new Zealand on a terms and condition which requires winning the majority contract in respect of the government ultra- fast initiative towards the broad band. And as a result of the same and as per the condition or can also say in accordance with the law, it is required that they cannot sell directly to the consumers, it requires to provide whole sale service to the retailers. It has been clearly provided at the time when chorus won most of the contract in respect the UFB fibre that tee Chorus limited requires to be demerged as a separate company which has been unanimously recommended then by the directors and the same was approved by approx 99% of the shareholders. As a result, in 1stDecember, 2011 the same was formally separated and got listed on NZX. After that Chorus limited grab opportunity in regard to the copper lines, DSLAMs and also fibre backhaul . Ames as already discussed, requires having relationship with the retail customer. It was rebranded as a Spark on 8th August, 2014 (Corporateinformation ,2016). As per the collected detail has been fund that they are responsible for building in approx 70% in respect of the new fabric ( i.e. ultra fast broadband network) for which they have received subsidy of an amount of approx $929 million so as to build the new fabric network (Corporateinformation ,2016). As we all are aware that the world is competitive and in this scenario, it is essential to check us the financial analysis of an entity so as to understand the financial position of the same in order to make better decision in while making investment. Also in order to analyse the financial position of the company it is necessary to analyse the annual report as well as the financial statement of the company. This report would help to provide necessary information in regard to the overall organization, about the current position as well as also in respect of the performance of the organization. Here, this report provide that financial analysis of the Chorus Limited while making comparison of two year balance sheet content and also income statement and also other data which would provide relevant information about the same. Review of the balance sheet: 30th June 2015 30th June 2014 Assets $M $M % Change Current assets Cash and call deposit 80 176 -55% Trade and other receivable 165 196 -16% Derivatives financial Instrument 3 1 200% Financial Lease receivable 3 3 0% Total current assets 251 376 -33.24 Non- current assets Derivatives financial Instrument 14 3 367% Trade and other receivables 11 - 11% Software other Intangibles 159 174 -9% Network assets 3406 3,128 9% Total non- current assets 3,590 3,305 8.62 Total Assets 3,841 3,681 4.35 Liabilities Current liabilities Trade and other payables 315 323 -2% Income Tax payable 12 32 -63% Derivative financial Instruments 12 14 -14% Total current liabilities excluding Crown funding 339 369 -8% Current portion of Crown funding 13 11 18% Total current liability 352 380 -7.37 Non-current liabilities Derivative financial Instruments 61 123 -50% Financial Lease payable 130 126 3% Debt 1663 1639 1% Deferred Tax Payable 199 192 4% Total non-current liabilities excluding CFH securities and Crown funding 2,053 2,080 -1% CFH securities 107 73 47% Crown funding 510 417 22% Total non current liabilities 2,670 2,570 3.89 Total liabilities 3,022 2,950 2.44 Equity Share Capital 465 465 0% Reserves -3 0 -300% Retained earning 357 266 34% Total equity 819 731 12.04 (Annual report, 2015) As we all know that the assets in the balance sheet have been divided into three main categories as capital, current and others. Current assets have been further divided as current as well as noncurrent assets. Current assets involve both cash and assets which are expected to be released within 12 months. It has been consider as a normal business life where cash balance in a company rises as well as fall on the basis of the outflow an inflow of the operational and financing activities And noncurrent assets refers to the assets which are not likely to turn into unexpected within a year from the balance sheet date. On the similar sense, current liabilities refer to the obligation which a company are required to release within one year. The same has been considered as short term debt The current assets of the company are $M00 The non-current assets of the company are $M 3590.00 The current liabilities of the company are $M 352.00 The non-current liabilities of the company are $M 2670.00 The total stockholders equity of the company are $M 819.00 Taking into consideration above table, we can clearly analyse that (Annual report, 2015) There is decrease in the current assets by 33 % , which is mainly due to decrease in the call and cash deposit by 55 %and trade receivable by 16%. These represents that Chorus have been able to take out amount from the customer. On the other hand, increase in derivative financial instruments represents hedging of the cash flow. In the nutshell, decrease in the current assets specifies that the company have been able to take out the cash from customers in a realisable manner (Accounting tools, 2015). non- current assets have been increased by 9%. It is mainly due to increase in the Derivative financial instrument which has been showing increase of 367%. Non- current assets also shows positive performance of the company There is decrease in the current liability by 7% it refers to the liability which are expected to be relies in one year for which settlement generally came from the utilization of the current assets like cash in hand, sale of inventory. Decrease in the same specifies that company s able to meets its current liability and showing positive romance. Noncurrent liability increase by 4% refer that there is increase in the liability which are expected to relapse in more than one year t may be due to lease, bonds payable, product warranties etc. Increase in the equity by 12 % specifies that there may addition in the capital or issue of shares. In the stated case there is no issue of shares but the increase is due to increase in the retained earnings by 34%. In the nutshell, it can be stated that the performance of the company is good Review of the stockholders equity: The following is The list of the required account balances: (Amounts in $M in thousands) Particulars 2015 2014 % increase or -decrease Issued capital 465.00 465.00 Nil Reserves -3.00 .00 -300 Retained earnings 357.00 266.00 34.21 Number of shares: Ordinary shares 396.00 389.00 1.80 Preference shares No change in the share capital shows that there is no issue of shares or any buyback of share during the mentioned period. Also it we check us reserves, there is decrease of 300% which show negative impact about the financial position of the company .however increase in the retained earnings on other hand shoe good performance of the company it mainly show the part of profitability which is also considered by the investors at the time of making investment decision (Accounting tools, 2015). In the nutshell, it can be stated that reserved on one hand shows negative impact of the company on the other hand increase in reserve is positive performance, but the overallscenarion provides that the compass is in financial crisis. Ratio Analysis Particulars 2015 2014 Indicates Current ratio: 0.71 0.99 Decrease- Bad Current assets 251.00 376.00 Current liabilities 352.00 380.00 On the basis of above table, decrease in current ratio is not specifying good performance of the company, as we all know that lower current ratio may provide problem with the inventory, ineffective standard in respect of collecting receivables. The decrease is mainly due to higher decrease in current assets in comparison to the last year. And the cause of this decrease is decrease in cash call deposit. References: My Accounting Course, 'Financial Ratio Analysis | Example | My Accounting Course'. Nap. 2015. Web. 22 May 2016. Readyratios.com, 'Financial Analysis and Accounting Book of Reference: Statement of Financial Position | IFRS Statements | IFRS Reports | Readyratios.Com'. Nap. 2015. Web. 22 May 2016. Readyratios.com, 'Financial Analysis and Accounting Book of Reference: Statement of Financial Position | IFRS Statements | IFRS Reports | Readyratios.Com'. Nap. 2015. Web. 22 May 2016.