Most of the proposed strategies Kantrowitz and Wingert mention involve attempts to identify more victims and potential victims of domestic violence, in hopes of helping them as early as possible. Routine screening of all women who end up in an emergency rooms, at-home visits to new mothers thought to be at risk, and interventions in substance abuse treatment programs are all suggested as ways that social workers and health providers might look for victims. But what then? A recent study, led by Harriet MacMillan at McMaster University in Ontario, examined the efficacy of domestic violence screening in medical settings and found that after 18 months, "there was no significant difference in [reported] levels of violence between the women who had been screened and those who had not."

Because medical professionals are often in a position to intervene earlier than police or social services, "everyone agrees that doctors and nurses can play a critical role," say Kantrowitz and Wingert. Unfortunately, everyone also agrees that "health-care providers are unprepared to spot more subtle signs of abuse. Broken bones or bruises aren't the only symptoms." MacMillan adds that more doctors "have to be aware of the mental-health problems associated with domestic violence." Says Lisa James of The Family Violence Prevention Fund, "There is some minor teaching of this issue in medical and nursing school, but it's spotty and it's nowhere near where it needs to be."

Raising awareness among medical professionals of the symptoms and side effects of domestic violence would undoubtedly be a positive step, but the question remains: What then? The only intervention the authors mention that's been proven effective is "consistent counseling with specially trained advocates " for women already already living in shelters for victims of domestic violence. There are a whole lot of steps between identifying a woman who's at risk or already suffering violence, and helping her out of that situation and into "consistent counseling." Victims are often reluctant to leave their abusers — for some very good reasons. I can just see this sort of screening backfiring, with well-meaning medical professionals badgering victims to leave — making them feel ashamed and unsafe at the doctor's office as well as at home.

Not to mention, I find it the idea of blanket screenings a bit unsettling. Generally speaking, I'm of the opinion that false accusations of abuse — though truly devastating — are so rare relative to unreported abuse, I would much rather spend my time talking about the latter. But if you start training doctors and nurses to assume that every woman who comes through the ER doors might be a victim, I imagine false positives would become a serious concern. How do they tell the woman who's lying to protect her abuser (and/or herself) from the woman who's not being abused? How does that affect trust between medical professionals and female patients across the board? And chillingly, in light of the news that it's legal in 8 states and D.C. to deny insurance coverage based on the "pre-existing condition" of domestic violence, could a doctor's suspicion of abuse affect a woman's ability to pay for health care?

Kantrowitz and Wingert note that all of these ideas require further study, which means that at the moment, we simply don't know what will work and what won't. "In the long run, it will be to everyone's benefit if we find what's effective," says MacMillan. Yeah, no kidding.

More than 1 Million Beaten [Newsweek]
When Getting Beaten By Your Husband Is A Pre-Existing Condition [HuffPo]

The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) and a team at the University of Bristol surveyed nearly 1400 teenagers, finding that 90% had been in intimate relationships and among those, "one in three said their boyfriends had tried to pressure them into unwanted sexual activity by using physical force or by bullying them." One in 16 said they'd been raped (it's hard not to wonder if some of the former group might actually belong in the latter) and one in four reported having been the victim of physical violence "including being slapped, punched or beaten." Additionally, one in 17 boys said they'd been raped, and one in five had suffered physical violence.

University of Bristol professor David Berridge calls the findings "appalling" and says, "It was shocking to find that exploitation and violence in relationships starts so young." But domestic violence experts aren't so surprised. Jo Sharpen of the Greater London Domestic Violence Project told BBC News, "Young people are confused about this and it isn't the first survey to show very worrying attitudes about violence being appropriate or people expecting sex. Teenagers are just as likely to be victims as adults."

A spokesperson for the Department for Children, Schools and Families said "relationship education" is set to become part of the health curriculum in schools by 2011, but also passes the buck a bit, noting: "Parents have a vital role to play in providing information and advice on sex and relationships. They should lead on instilling values in their children..." That's true enough, but it ignores the fact that many adults don't know the warning signs of dating violence or what a healthy relationship should look like — not to mention that all kids hear "Don't hit!" from their parents starting when they're toddlers, but that doesn't mean it sinks in.

And even if parents do recognize warning signs, they might not know how to help their children protect themselves. Ann Burke, whose 23-year-old daughter Lindsay was murdered by a boyfriend in 2005, recognized that the guy was trouble but found herself helpless to intervene. Eventually, Lindsay did leave him, more than once, but "she didn't change her phone number or have a plan for safely cutting off contact for good." More education about dating violence, Burke believes, might have helped Lindsay recognize the danger earlier and protect herself more thoroughly once she left him. So Ann Burke and her husband Chris pushed Rhode Island legislators to pass the Lindsay Ann Burke Act, requiring all public middle and high schools to include lessons on dating violence in their health curriculum. The law went into effect last fall.

"Schools have a clear role in giving young people accurate information and developing the skills they need to make safe and responsible choices," the DCSF spokesperson acknowledged, and it's heartening to know that within two years, those programs will be available throughout Britain. Here in the U.S., after the Lindsay Ann Burke Act was passed, the National Association of Attorneys General unanimously adopted a resolution that would encourage similar programs around the country, and Liz Claiborne, Inc., in partnership with the Education Development Center, has been pushing its "Love Is Not Abuse" curriculum to high schools in all 50 states. But the change is slow and incremental. In the meantime, as I said when I wrote about the Rhode Island law last year, I just wish every girl could get a copy of The Gift of Fear for her 13th birthday.

Price: 'I've been raped more than once' [Digital Spy]
'Many girls' abused by boyfriends [BBC]
R.I. teens learn about dating violence [Salon]

Fairstein writes:

Nicole Brown was 18 years old in 1977, when she started dating the famous athlete who would take her life less than 20 years later. Shortly after their relationship began, Nicole documented the first incident of physical abuse by her lover. O.J. Simpson's charm and good looks, his celebrity endorsements, and his dazzling smile also allowed others-relatives and friends among them-to overlook the escalating violence throughout the couple's courtship and marriage.

She adds:

Like most victims of intimate partner violence, Nicole Brown called 911 to report her attacks more than eight times before she successfully separated from her husband. Police officers responded to her home on those occasions, sometimes making formal reports of their visits and often-when Nicole herself declined to press charges-left without making any record. At no point did anyone in her family or in law enforcement effect a successful intervention. O.J. Simpson was never arrested for assault, never forced to acknowledge the injury he caused his wife. He was never held accountable for any of the violence he perpetrated against Nicole.

While her point is understandable, by bringing up a decades-old celebrity-oriented case (which may not mean much to Rihanna or others her age), Fairstein makes dying at the hands of a "loving" man seem like a fluke. Isn't it more important to know that 1,232 women are killed each year by an intimate partner? It's not just something that happens every once in a while. It happens all the time. The American Institute on Domestic Violence reports that 5.3 million women are abused each year. Shouldn't we focus on the here and now, that this is happening every day, and not just a case from 1994?

Meanwhile, Raina Kelley has a piece for Newsweek in which she debunks the many myths surrounding domestic violence. "Any discussion of domestic violence should not revolve around what the couple may have been arguing about," she writes. "There isn't a verbal argument that should "spark" or "provoke" an attack of the kind that leaves one person with wounds that require medical attention." Kelley also warns against calling what Chris Brown did "a mistake."

People leave the oven on or fry turkeys in the garage and burn their house down. One may even accidentally step on the gas instead of the brake and run over the family cat. Mistakes resulting in tragic consequences happen all the time. But one cannot mistakenly beat someone up. You do not accidentally give someone black eyes, a broken nose and a split lip.

Of course, what really needs more attention and focus is the psychology of a woman who stays with someone who has hit her. Kelley urges: "Understand that those who are abused do not stay with their abusers because they want to be beaten again, or because they are really at fault; it's usually because they feel trapped and guilty." And Fairstein echoes this sentiment, noting: "Some women capable of supporting themselves tell us that they love the offender so deeply that they are unable to separate, believing that his behavior will change, or that they did something to provoke the attack and bring it on themselves." Yet, the most recent comment on Fairstein's Daily Beast essay? From "sonofloud," who comments on Rihanna: "If she's stupid enough to stay with someone who beats her, she has no one to blame but herself."

Next Time, He'll Kill You [The Daily Beast]
Domestic Abuse Myths [Newsweek]

Steiner is brave to admit her naiveté when it comes to domestic violence, though it is certainly troubling that she thought it couldn't happen to her because she was affluent and smart. When asked if she saw herself as vulnerable, she replies:

A lot of people assume that I must have had really low self-esteem at the time, but it wasn't that. In some ways, I was too confident. I had just graduated from Harvard, which some people thought was a big deal, and I had a great job at Seventeen magazine and a New York apartment and I was meeting men everywhere. I was on top of the world. When I met my future husband, he told me about his very abusive childhood, and I never really doubted that I could help him. I was very naive in that way. I didn't realize what kind of psychological problems this kind of history could create. He was my first love, and I threw myself into loving him unconditionally.

Steiner's situation was incredibly sad, and her statements offer a clear view of the psychology and thoughts women in domestic violence scenarios often have. For instance, she talks about keeping the abuse a secret from her friends:

With most people, I would work to hide it … I also think I knew that the minute I told people, the jig would be up. I would have to leave the relationship, and I was not ready to do that.

In addition, when Newsweek asks: Did you ever blame yourself for what was happening? Steiner reponds:

I didn't blame myself for him being abusive, and I never felt like I deserved to be hit. But I blame myself for staying. It would have been easier if I had told people the first time it happened. But I didn't. By waiting until it had happened 20 or 30 times, I was afraid everyone would think I was pathetic that I let this go on for so long.

Some people might find it hard to understand why a woman would not leave a man who physically injured her, and while Steiner isn't completely clear about her reasons (she does say violence doesn't happen on a first date, but instead when you're already "trapped" in a relationship), it does seem that she has learned from her experience:

I hope so much that other women won't ignore the red flags like I did. When he choked me during sex, I ignored it. His early possessiveness, I ignored it. I didn't realize that things would get much worse… Love can't fix a violent person. The only thing you can do is leave.

The Shadow Of Shame [Newsweek]

Law enforcement sources tell TMZ that they try and book a suspect for the most serious crime they can be charged with. While domestic abuse is punishable by up to four years in prison, a suspect found guilty of making criminal threats will do up to nine years. Of course, it's up to the D.A. to file any additional charges. (And a jury must find him guilty.) In addition, the breaking news is that Chris Brown may have used a "deadly weapon" in the assault.

This high-profile situation raises so many questions:

• Will Rihanna break up with him? You might think think that a 911 call and a trip to the hospital would immediately mean that a relationship is over. But Diane Lane's husband, Josh Brolin, was arrested for spousal battery in 2004. She declined to press charges, however, and they remain married. And plenty of women, all over the world, stay in physically or emotionally abusive relationships.
• Will Chris Brown's career suffer? The singer has a deal with Wrigley's gum and has been pursuing acting; he was in StompThe Yard and on an episode of the The O.C and was supposed to star in a basketball film called Phenom. Do people support a man who hits women? Miles Davis sold a lot of albums. Axl Rose was accused of abuse by both Stephanie Seymour and ex-wife Erin Everly.
• What if Rihanna doesn't break up with Chris Brown? What would happen to her? Her well-being, her carefully-managed image via Jay-Z and the people at Def Jam; her ads for Gucci and CoverGirl cosmetics? Rihanna — and her management — were always reluctant to admit that the star was dating Chris Brown; how will they handle commenting on this incident to the public, should she choose to stay with him? Or will they "encourage" her to stop seeing him?

One thing is clear: Whether or not he is found guilty, Chris Brown has some issues he needs to deal with. In 2007, he talked to Giant magazine about his abusive stepfather:

Like the day an 11-year-old Brown made a promise to his mother. He vowed that he would go to jail by age 15 for killing his abusive stepfather. "I just want you to know that I love you," he told her. "But I'm gonna take a baseball bat one day while you at work, and I'm gonna kill him." Brown's parents had separated when he was seven. When his mother remarried, she moved her son and his new stepfather to a trailer park. Then his stepfather shot himself in the head. The shot went straight through the eyes. He survived the suicide attempt but was permanently blinded.

"When you're blind, your senses are heightened, like your smell, hearing, your sense of touch," Brown explains. "You can move and maneuver around your sight. But he used to hit my mom….He made me terrified all the time, terrified like I had to pee on myself. I remember one night he made her nose bleed. I was crying and thinking, ‘I'm just gonna go crazy on him one day…' I hate him to this day."

Chris Brown Could Do Nine Years in Prison [TMZ]
Chris Brown Allegedly Attacks Rihanna, Own Career With 'Deadly Weapon' [Defamer]
EXCLUSIVE: Is Chris Brown Violent? [Giant]

Larry Fitzgerald, after all, was one of the feel-good stories of the game. There was a plenty of focus on his personal life — mostly his relationship with his father, a veteran sports writer who said he would refuse to cheer for his son from the press box, on principle. So sweet!

What barely got any mention was that the mother of Fitzgerald's child, former Raiders cheerleader Angela Nazario, has accused him of domestic abuse, and filed for an order of protection against him. Nazario claimed that, during an altercation where she "may have hit [Fitzgerald] in the face," he retaliated and "grabbed me by my hair with both hands on the back of my head very very hard and tossed me across the room." According to Nazario, she hit her head on their marble floor and lost "chunks of her hair“ in the assault.

Then there's Holmes (pictured), The Philadelphia Inquirer's "man of the hour", whose troubles hail from further back. In 2006 Holmes' girlfriend, Lashae Boone, told police Holmes became angry and started "choking [her], throwing her to the ground ... and slamming her into a door." The charges were later dropped and Holmes agreed to go into a treatment center. "It doesn't mean anger-management classes," he told the press. "It just means I needed someone else to talk with about all the situations and to get an understanding of what was going on."

Dropped charges are dropped charges. And I'm not one to call for a citizen conviction of this guys based on unproven allegations. But, given the amount of press coverage and hero worship heaped on these football stars, doesn't the fact that they both have faced abuse allegations seem worth discussing, beyond Weintraub's aside that, "Perhaps Holmes can stop off for counseling on the way to Disneyland?"

The QB That Saved Pittsburgh [Slate]

The findings are hard to read, but can potentially help doctors more effectively identify and treat women who have been abused. The research indicates that women who have been abused are more likely to show certain patterns of bruising and fracturing. The researchers claim that they were surprised at their findings: “we expected the injuries to be distributed the way they are for other facial traumas… and they weren’t.” David Greene, a doctor who has studied intimate partner violence, says that most women show signs of repeated violence concentrated in a single area: "There's a lot of hitting in the face because a woman's face is the most meaningful area — a hand slap, bruises are typical of that."

Domestic violence victims have distinct facial injuries, study says [Scientific American]

Image via Manipulator

Because, the New York Times argues, "the wide gap between the sentences raised questions about whether Ms. Santiago shouldered an extra burden as she faced judge and jury: the duty to be a good mother."

Nixzaliz was also beaten brutally by Rodriguez, and some victims' rights advocates believe that she is getting unfair treatment from the justice system. According to the Times, "Details of Ms. Santiago’s troubled past — her learning disabilities, her abusive relationships and her miscarriage shortly before Nixzmary died — have caused some who followed the trial to wonder about her capacity to help her daughter." Others, like Columbia Law School director of Gender and Sexuality Law, Katherine M. Franke, believe that Nixzaliz's harsher sentence reinforces stereotyped parental roles. Women are saddled with "all the obligations and responsibility — and ultimately the punishment — for what happens to their children.”

However, the prosecution said that Nixzaliz encouraged the beatings, and jurors say they were most swayed by the following evidence: "Ms. Santiago did not immediately call an ambulance and instead bathed the girl and put her to bed. A neighbor testified that Ms. Santiago was calm that night, wailing only while the neighbor was on the phone with a 911 operator."

Seeing Failure as Mother as Factor in Sentencing [NY Times]

After Only Two Weeks An Adoptive Mother Gives A Child Back

It's not international adoption, as only 19,000 foreign-born children are adopted each year, mostly because of the prohibitive cost. And it's not even the fact that some kinds of children are more "desirable" than others. 521,400 people said they were willing to adopt black children, compared to 41,591 black children in foster care; 351,600 people said they would adopt children between the ages of 6 and 12, compared to 46,136 children between those ages in foster care; 185,400 people said they would adopt children over the age of 13, compared to 30,654 teens in foster care. Katz believes the discrepancy is related to an entirely unwelcoming bureaucracy.

Katz founded an organization called the Listening to Parents project, and he found that "Far too many agencies view their primary response in adoption as screening out 'bad' parents rather than recruiting good ones." For example:

Contrast two of the locations we studied for a 2005 report: In San Jose, everyone calling to inquire about adoption was invited to a meeting designed to inform prospective parents about the children available and to get parents into the training program. In Miami, everyone calling to inquire about adoption was required to fill out a two-page questionnaire, over the phone, that included sensitive personal and financial information. Those who "passed" the call were invited to an information meeting that began with an announcement that all attendees would be fingerprinted at the front of the room. Is it any wonder that a prospective parent in San Jose was 12 times more likely to adopt than a prospective parent in Miami?

In the U.K, non-traditional parents say they find judgment from some social workers who are still looking for the ideal heterosexual married couple as adoptive parents, the Independent reports. However, parents in the UK are less colorblind than those in the U.S. as adoption agents say they have difficulty placing black children, particularly black boys. According to family lawyer Nina Hansen, "As for black boys, the media really works against them; people believe the future will bring serious trouble with the police. It is much harder to place boys, especially those over five, but little black boys? Well, you can pretty much forget it."

Adoption's Numbers Mystery [Washington Post]

Adoptive Parents Believe Boys Are 'Too Much Trouble' [The Independent: UK]

"Notice in both stories, the focus is on what the senator said (or didn’t say)," MMW notes. "The horrific murders of these women happened in July, over a month ago…There was nothing in major Western news outlets about this. But as soon as a senator says something horrible about the incident, there are three stories within a week. As if what the senator said in defense of the murders is more newsworthy than the murders themselves."

The bloggers at MMW also point out that the western media's coverage of these women ignores the strength of these women who defied cultural norms to seek happiness. "The women were not meek or timid…they were starting a revolution of their own and gave their lives for the cause. In order for their deaths to not be in vain, news outlets must recognize their bravery and their defiance instead of making them look like weak and submissive little girls," blogger Fatima writes.

The BBC is now reporting that two bodies have been exhumed, and that those women were shot and buried without a shroud. Despite the UPI's news that they were buried alive, these women appeared to have been dead before they were put in the ground. Police have arrested six people in connection with the murders so far, and these people are said to be related to the dead women. Sadly, two older women who tried to help the would-be brides were also kidnapped, according to the BBC. Despite the unfortunate comments of Sardar Israrullah Zehri, the Leader of the House, Mian Raza Rabbani said, "We condemn the heinous act and assure the House that a complete report on the incident would be submitted."

Burying Girls Alive Draws Pakistan Rebukes [UPI]
Pakistan Opens Investigation Into 'Honor Killings' Of 5 Women Who Tried To Choose Own Husbands [AP]
Mouth to Mouth: How Pakistani Senator’s Comments Overshadow the Real Story [Muslimah Media Watch]
Pakistan Women's Bodies Exhumed [BBC]

When I first saw this story, I thought she was joking, but she's not. In trying to argue that rage, substance abuse and violence is a result of the oppression of the Aboriginal people, most people would be hard pressed to say that she's wrong. Addiction begets addicts, violence begets violence, and crushing and hopeless poverty and societal isolation does nothing to help. But that does not mean that no one should try.

That the NT intervention is heavy-handed and sucks at fixing the problems in Aboriginal society probably goes without saying. In 1999, one report found that "in Western Australia, Aboriginal women are more than 45 times more likely to be a victim of domestic violence than non-Aborigines." Putting troops on the streets, or interviewing every child about abuse, or curtailing welfare payments is not going to combat a systemic and (at this point) multi-generational problem. It requires education and equity in the legal system and would probably be assisted by poverty-eradication programs, better health care and living conditions and efforts to right the wrongs of racism (like some version of affirmative action). But it does not mean, as Greer suggests, "They can't get over [their rage] and it's inhuman to ask them to get over it."

If one accepts the premise that Aboriginal men are — consciously or subconsciously — expressing their rage over their position in Australian society on the bodies of Aboriginal women and children, one must also recognize that it is the wrong outlet. But domestic violence (as we learned yesterday) also stems from sexism, from an attempt to assert power over another person and from the failure to understand that it's completely wrong. That, even as Ted Bunch noted, more "brown and black men" are punished for it than white men is not a reason to refrain from punishing the former, but a reason to increase the equity in the system for the victims of the latter. And the last thing a feminist ought to be doing is advancing the idea that domestic violence is an understandable reaction to racial oppression and can thus be dealt with, if it still exists, when racial oppression is gone.

Australia Apologizes to Aborigines [International Herald Tribune]
Senate Paves the Way For NT 'Emergency Intervention [Crikey]
The Storm Within [The Age]
Germain Greer Writes on Aboriginal Rage [UPI]
The Truth About Aboriginal Domestic Violence [The Australian Paper Archives]

Bunch's group sessions involve a male and a female leader who don't take crap from their attendees and call them out when they say sexist things. They discuss everything from why a man would refer to grown women as "girls", to why catcalling is not a compliment to the women abusers additionally tend to harass, and any other sexist acts women are stuck dealing with on a daily basis. The men are asked to think about sexism as another way of exerting dominance over others, in the same way many of them have experienced being harassed by the police based on the color of their skin. Bunch doesn't fool himself that he's changing many minds — his advise to victims of abuse is to expect the same abuser back no matter how much he promises that he's changed — but he figures that maybe getting them to think about sexism and to be held strictly accountable for attending the classes (at the risk of being jailed) is a start.

Bunch probably wouldn't self-identify as a feminist, but he says such wonderfully feminist things like:

Calling [violence against women] a woman’s issue serves men because then men don't have to get involved in it. We need to start re-framing it, holding men accountable, changing the language so we have to start looking at our statistics in a different way like what you’ll see if you Google "domestic violence" is "domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women." That talks about the victim, but it doesn’t say anything about the perpetrator.

He also thinks we should all start saying "the leading cause of injury to women is men's violence." It's Bunch's combination of cynical resignation about the men he serves and his hopeful idealism about the society he'd like to change that makes him — and the work he's trying to accomplish — so fascinating.

Class Teaches Respect for Women to Batterers [WNYC.org]

Related: A Call To Men
Safe Horizon's Domestic Violence Accountability Program

Ms. notes that 60% of these types of restraining orders are violated each year, and that several other states have implemented the use of GPS to track abusers. The technology is already widely used to track sex offenders and other ex-cons. According to Ms., the way the technology works is "the offender is outfitted with an electronic anklet that communicates with a satellite. The victim can designate “exclusion zones,” such as her home or office, in which she would like to be protected. In the best programs, if her abuser enters these zones, police and the victim are notified immediately."

Of course, as Ms. notes, there remains a question of civil liberties being violated, especially since many accused abusers are often required to wear the GPS anklets before they go to trial. Are these violations worth it as long as women's lives are being saved?

Tracking The Abusers [Ms.]
Cindy Bischof's Legacy [Chicago Tribune]

But! There's a silver lining, as most Brits no longer believe that it's the man's job to work and the woman's job to raise wee ones — only 31.1% of women and 41.1% of men believe in this old-fashioned notion, down from 59.2% of women and 65.5% of men in 1984. "It is conceivable that opinions are shifting as the shine of the 'super-mum' syndrome wears off, and the idea of women juggling high-powered careers while also baking cookies and reading bedtime stories is increasingly seen to be unrealisable by ordinary mortals," says Cambridge sociologist Jacqueline Scott.

Really Jacqui?? Are we still pretending that this "super-mum" was ever anything but a fantasy meant to make women feel guilty if they weren't perfect? I've said it before here, and I'll say it again: parenting takes compromise, and children miss out if a father is never, ever home just as they suffer if a mother is never home. Every individual makes the choices he or she believes is best for their family — however — it does make me wonder why this shift has occurred. As it has been noted, there's been somewhat of a renewed backlash against feminism since the riot grrrl-friendly 90s, and certainly there has been a glorification of motherhood, with every celebrity baby bump receiving hysterical coverage on the internet and in magazines.

Speaking of the glorification of past ideals, there was an article in CNN yesterday about the "growing trend" of stay-at-home wives without children. First of all, the statistics they gave on this "trend" were vague at best, so I'm going to have to assume that it was manufactured by an editor who realized it was August and that he was going to have to come up with something to write about in this molasses-slow news month. Anyway, CNN dug up some boring-ass ladies who fill their days doing laundry, charity work, and "creative writing." Apparently, they are less stressed out than when they worked! Imagine that! Doing yoga all day and a few errands is less stressful than a full time job!

Anyway, I'm less irked by these women than by the attitude above that women working outside the home is harmful to children. There are many, many, different kinds of full time jobs, and it's terrifyingly reductive of people to think that working moms are anathema to healthy kidlets.

[Image via Harvard Gazette]

'Support For Working Mums Falls' [BBC]
No Kids, No Jobs For Growing Number Of Wives [CNN]

Carlos Lusverti, Amnesty's general coordinator in Venezuela, told the AP that shelters are pivotal in helping battered women, because "One of the first things you can do is separate them from the place where they are the victim of aggression." Despite Chavez's sketchy track record (in general) he has come through with at least a few of his promises from that 2007 address. According to According to a Venezuelan news blog called Venezuela Analysis, earlier this month, "The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Luisa Estela Morales, had created a new tribunal which would focus exclusively on violence against women and will have the capacity to try 5,000 cases per year." But, with 90% of domestic violence cases still unreported, Venezuela has an incredibly long way to go.

Venezuela Abuse Efforts 'At Risk' [BBC]
Amnesty International: Venezuela’s Record Mixed on Eliminating Violence Against Women [Venezuela Analysis]
Amnesty: Venezuela Neglecting Battered Women [AP]
Venezuela; New Law For Women 'Useless Unless Fully Implemented', Said Amnesty In New Report [Amnesty International]

Earlier: Every Hour, One Russian Woman Dies At The Hands Of A Male Family Member

There is no upside to this story, so I will continue to list the gritty details. According to Amnesty International, "The Russian Federation does not have a specific law on violence in the family," and NPR reports that for the police to intervene in a domestic violence situation, the injury has to be so grave as to "prevent you from work for two weeks."

Number of women's shelters in Moscow: 0. Number of beds in the nearest women's shelter to Moscow: 7. Because housing is so expensive in Russia, many women, like one of the women interviewed by NPR, have to go back to living with their murderous ex-husbands because they can't afford to go anywhere else. Amnesty International tells almost the identical story, one of a woman named "Anna."

In December 2003, after her husband had threatened to set her on fire, Anna finally decided to file for a divorce. Incensed at her action, her husband destroyed the family’s possessions, including dishes and clothes. In March 2004, a week after the couple had been officially divorced, she returned with her older son to the flat, as she had nowhere else to go. Her ex-husband told her that he did not recognize the divorce and that he was going to have sex with her. During the incurring argument he doused her with inflammable liquid and tried to set her alight. While Anna had witnesses who could confirm what had happened, the police told her they could not do anything, because he "had not committed a crime". According to Anna, the police did not pay attention to the fact that he had a lighter nor did they check her coat which was soaked in the liquid.

Some Russian women, like pop star Valeria, have started to speak out against the endemic violence in their country, but silence on the matter still seems to reign. To send money to Amnesty International, click here.

Domestic Violence A Silent Crisis In Russia [NPR]
Russian Federation: Nowhere To Turn To: Violence Against Women In The Family [Amnesty International]
Domestic Violence: Russian Women Speak Out [BBC News]