Noah Brand investigates VAWA for himself, and discovers that it allows for equal protection under the law of all victims of domestic violence – regardless of gender or sexual orientation.
Our friends at Buzzfeed point us to an interesting article about how Men’s Rights Activists have influenced some right-wing members of Congress to revisit the Violence Against Women Act on the grounds that it could be abused by illegal immigrants to gain residency by falsely claiming domestic abuse. As usual, a good law is being attacked on the grounds that it could, in edge cases, produce a bad result, and it’s better that everyone have less protection rather than one person, somewhere, potentially having too much. You’ll recognize this tactic from some of its other incarnations, such as “welfare queens”, “zombie voters”, and similar largely-imaginary monsters used to screw over people who want to feed their children or vote.
For me personally, the funniest part is the guys in comments complaining that the law unfairly protects women and gay men but offers no protection for straight men. Why is that funny, you ask? Well, I admit, it’s funnier if you read the law.
`(6) DOMESTIC VIOLENCE- The term `domestic violence’ includes felony or misdemeanor crimes of violence committed by a current or former spouse of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabitating with or has cohabitated with the victim as a spouse, by a person similarly situated to a spouse of the victim under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction receiving grant monies, or by any other person against an adult or youth victim who is protected from that person’s acts under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction.
Notice anything? The complete lack of gendered language, maybe? Indeed, throughout the definitions section, gendered language is specifically eschewed, meaning that the law does, quite deliberately, provide straight men with the exact same protection under the law as everyone else. No wonder they had to fight it on the basis of Scary Scary Immigrants; it’s literally the closest thing to a leg that they have to stand on.
About Noah Brand
Noah, that’s not quite the line you want, because the original version at least textually did seem to give benefits to female but not male survivors of abuse.
The line you want is in the 2005 revision: “Nothing in this title shall be construed to prohibit male victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking from receiving benefits and services under this title”
Black Humour
Its more honest if one line isn’t cherry picked and the case declared closed, when the far more to the story.
Hell Noah and BlackHumor are both quoting from the 2005.
But even if the words are there the big money question is: Is it being enforced and interpreted that way?
By Immigration, it is. Can’t speak to every other government entity out there.
I actually think you might be right on that one. There were a number of women alongside men at congressional hearings disusing how their immigrant husbands filed false allegations to get their greencards, ruining their reputations (among other harms). Ironically, that is supposedly one of the aspects Obama has made even easier for immigrants, meaning his immigrant policy in the demo VAWA reauth is even more harmful to women as well as men.
One has gotta really wonder about this editor based on reality: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fiwsq_31s64 Did he ever go to his local domestic violence, rape crisis or child abuse agencies to seek shelter or support as a purported survivor of female abusers? There’s certainly no sign that he did in this article.
Guys like daddy justice have real cojones. They are getting into politicians faces and asking the tough question. (which paraphrasing from the video is:)
How does this law protect children who are being abused by mothers. Since the law specifically states that services for children will not be rendered unless it is in relation to violence against women, it leaves children who’s abuser is the mother unprotected.
Mothers commit 70% of all parental abuse (even when you include sexual in the numbers), and 70% of all parental child slayings.
Hi Noah, I’m reposting this from over at NSWATM:
Sec. 402 (b):
Sec. 41305:
And specifically Sec. 41305 (c.1.B):
Mind you, this is from a quick skimming. It’s an enormous document, so there may be corresponding clauses specifically targeting research into violence against men and specifically targeting education of women and girls to be allies of men and boys to work toward ending violence against men, etc. But I’m skeptical.
There is, of course, mostly non-gendered language in the act. Which is good. But I still think there is enough gendered language to be critical of.
Noah: You want gendered language, you should also have read the TITLE of the act.
Violence against Women Act. Says it right in the title. If this act wasn’t designed to give women preferential treatment then why do they need the act. DV is already against the law, has been for a very long time. Every go back and listen to the debates, NOT ONCE is violence against men mentioned. You are looking for gendered language in the act itself NOPE probably not there, reason: Would be against the constitution BUT this act was / IS designed to get money for WOMEN and WOMEN ONLY
Or to put things another way: The smearing tactic from feminists against congressmembers who fight a straight-up reauthorization of VAWA as written (while proposing a new version of VAWA to tighten up corruption, free up funding or men, and state that illegals must have more than a mere allegation to secure citizenship) are demonized as being *for* violence against women.
But, I thought the law protected everybody????
I don’t think a mere allegation should get any man arrested and slapped with an order of protection, whether the husband or domestic partner of an illegal alien or of a citizen alike. People don’t realize how absolutely automatic a 90 day (at least) temporary order of protection is, whether the woman wants one on him or not, if she calls 911 and they read it as domestic violence. They also don’t realize how consequential and far ranging those are when you’re living with someone. You’re forced to move out, find another place to live, can’t have any contact with her whatsoever no matter how much she wants to and not even if she initiates the phone call, text or email, and so on. All this for her false allegation, or true on of your returning one slap to her after she slaps you three times, with almost always no consequences to her.
This is all about radical feminists wanting to absolutely end male physical dominance in intimate relationships, at least among the middle class on up. This leaves her free to slap or punch him in the stomach as much as she wants, with no fear of his retaliation and little fear of VAWA consequences. Over the last couple of decades women and girls have been doing a whole lot more of both. The culture has absorbed that they can get away with it, while men can’t get away with the smallest retaliation. It’s outrageous.
If she has no significant injury, he shouldn’t be arrested, or slapped with an order of protection, and VAWA shouldn’t apply.
Amend it accordingly.
I am sick and tired of this awaiting moderation on this site. Then my comments sometimes disappear and they’re all reasonable, and not personal attacks, but not down the feminist talking points either.
If you have personal questions about being moderated it’s best to contact Lisa Hickey.
@ Doug1111 … I “thought my responses were disappearing but I found that the run of responses may go to a second page and I found it on the prior page. Not saying this is your case but may be the situation.
Why should either gender have dominance? Do you believe men should have dominance in intimate relationships? you’ve brought this up before and it’s confusing to me.
Read the longer comments here. There’s PLENTY of one sided gender language in the detailed implementing parts of and under the the act. Huge amounts. One way funding. The impact of the act has been hugely disparate, way beyond the relative incidence of domestic violence.
Also trivial acts are considered domestic violence when committed by men, like open handed slapping, but not when committed by women. No it’s not written that way but it is enforced that way, and under VAWA training sessions for local police organized and paid for by VAWA, and grants to those police forces to implement VAWA goals, are taught and directed that way.
It’s hugely gender imbalanced under a thin veneer on top of being gender neutral in order to try to pass constitutional challenge. I still don’t know why it hasn’t been by some top lawyers.
I take it that they ditched the language that stated (from the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2011):
“(A) Nondiscrimination.–No person in the United States shall on the basis of actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sex, gender identity (as defined in paragraph 249(c)(4) of title 18, United States Code), sexual orientation, or disability be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity funded in whole or in part with funds made available under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (title IV of Public Law 103-322; 108 Stat. 1902), the Violence Against Women Act of 2000 (division B of Public Law 106-386; 114 Stat. 1491), the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (title IX of Public Law 109-162; 119 Stat. 3080), the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2011, and any other program or activity funded in whole or in part with funds appropriated for grants, cooperative agreements, and other assistance administered by the Office on Violence Against Women.”
Because I’m pretty sure that clearly qualifies that VAWA funds cannot be used in a way that discriminates one the basis of actual or perceived race, color, national origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability. Oh, wait there was another paragraph right after that…
“(B) Exception.–If gender segregation or gender-specific programming is necessary to the essential operation of a program, nothing in this paragraph shall prevent any such program or activity from consideration of an individual’s gender. In such circumstances, alternative reasonable accommodations are sufficient to meet the requirements of this paragraph.”
…unless they are discriminating against males (or trans folk, what with that actual or perceived bit), then it’s OK so long as they claim that it’s needed and provide a “separate but reasonable” alternative. There’s one important thing missing here: define reasonable. It’s certainly a lower standard than “equal”, but where exactly does it lie?
*Wild guess time* I think it’s possibly there for single-gender service/awareness campaigns eg women’s shelter, or men’s shelter. But that should still mean a men’s shelter should be funded? I’m guessing if you have a women’s shelter and want to keep it female only (something to do with feeling safe around your own gender) then those exceptions would allow that? I’d hope that both shelters though receive equal support where needed.
If you read the language of the VAWA STOP funding guidelines I provided elsewhere, you will see how that is applied. Female programs may be female only, but any program that assists men (and men are not allowed to be denied because it is for men) MUST also serve women (same standard applies to children. Any program for children MUST provide aid for women.).
I know in Canada a lot of abuse shelters get around accusations of discrimination by proudly and loudly proclaiming they provide services for both genders. However, if anyone actually takes the time to examine these abuse shelters, one quickly learns that the services provided are counselling, shelter, etc for women, and anger management for men. Both genders do have services available, but it’s pretty clear where those shelters stand.
It far more than a case of weeding out the gendered language.
The act fund discriminatory programs and services, programs that are informed by the Deluth model, and patriarchal dominance theory – batterer education programs that assume the batterer is make, shelters that assume the victim is female.
Predominant aggressor is a big deal too, because it profiles men, while not using gendered language.
(arrest larger party and so on)
Be careful not to run over too many abuse victim on your bus guys.
Wow, I can’t believe someone is trying to make the case that something called the “Violence against Women act” isn’t gendered.
This is a great lesson about how you can’t always judge a piece of legislation by its title, or at least you can’t really tell the content based on the title. It would be great if Congress was more straightforward and honest than that, but that’s not generally how politics works. Sometimes legislation is given a particular title to put any opposition in a bad light. If you’re against VAWA, that must mean that you’re in favor of violence against women, right? If you are against the Patriot Act, then you must be for terrorism, right? (It’s actually an acronym, P.A.T.R.I.O.T. A.C.T. One of the T’s is Terrorism, the rest I don’t remember.)
Here it is, VAWA feminists in Washington saying that children being abused by their mothers does not come under their work and domestic violence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vgGoCYGUx0
I like how she is throwing the “abusive” label in an effort to control his behaviour, then proceeds to touch him.
“I like how she is throwing the “abusive” label in an effort to control his behaviour, then proceeds to touch him.”
While denying that false accusations of abuse are a problem!
Here’s some reinforcement from a wise woman on the other side of the Pond: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhTdonT1g4w
Bizarre, we are here debating whether a piece of legislation based on patriarchal dominance theory that discriminates against men, same sex couples and children that have been abused by their mothers is problematic or not.
The morally correct position is to advocate that its de-politicised and taken away from the radical feminists asap and handed over to a group of professionals, like these people http://www.cafcusa.org/
That’s what adherence to certain gender-based ideologies can do to one’s reasoning. Intentionally discriminating based on gender becomes perfectly logical and reasonable.
Unfortunately, what is morally correct and what is politically feasable are not always the same. As stupid and underhanded as the democrats efforts to promote the concept of a republican war on women campaign may be, it does have an impact, and makes any kind of large scale action such as completely scrapping VAWA a political suicide maneuver most politicians won’t dare for fear of repercussions. Sp baby steps.
Yeah but look at the strength of the grassroots push against it, its only a matter of time before it reached critical mass.
I see a strong enough push against VAWA to justify modification. The push against it isn’t strong enough to justify complete elimination. I think you may be overestimating the strength of opposition.
The thing it VAWA has a sunset provision. If it isn’t reauthorized in some form by September it will expire. I can see that happening as the democrats refuse to agree to the house modifications and the Republicans stand on them as perfectly reasonable and not anti woman at all just pro fairness for men and not opening the door to more false allegations by illegal immigrants wanting amnesty.
The way I see it is this
The only difference between it being eliminated and replaced by a professional operation, is feminist dominance of the conversation in the mainstream media while the people that are for a nondiscriminatory, evidence and science system are generally relegated to comments sections and grassroots sites – but its only a matter of time before the latter groups message breaches mainstream.
With nearly 80% of Americans believing in a supernatural creator that sent himself to the middle eastern desert in the form a human born of a virgin to be brutally murdered as atonement for having created us imperfectly, I’m not going to bet on the “science and evidence” crowd showing up anytime soon.
It’s also important that it be reformed to not make a no or trivial injury open handed slap shove or holding (small scratches, some bruising from having one’s arm held with the person held is trying are to free it – e.g. to slap some more) no longer criminalized with automatic, she has no say in it, orders of protection that force him to move out and stop all communication no matter how much she wants to talk.
Aside from that being far to draconian for trivial things, it’s also in effect highly gender unbalanced since mere slaps by females about never lead to her arrest, and very rarely lead to him making a 911 call out of being pissed of etc. in the first place.
What’s developed in part in response is that women slap, shove and punch men a whole lot more than the reverse, because they know they won’t get arrested and forced to move out through an order of protection but if he retaliates, he will be. That’s gotten into the culture by now.
I’ve previously mentioned victims being aggressively rejected by government funded services due to their gender or that of their abuser. Often the victims concerned approach those services after seeing literature which is very carefully neutralised from a gender standpoint. In essence they have been set up – whether deliberately or not – for further abuse by the information disseminated by those services.
A decade ago I would be heartened by gender neutral presentations that gave the appearance of inclusiveness for all victims. In the intervening time I’ve come to learn that gender neutrality is often merely a consequence of a political need to give the appearance of inclusiveness rather than an intent to actually operate in an inclusive manner.
You know, it’s not a good idea to antagonize your audience with discrimination denial while profiting from advertisement in violation of the Adsense terms of service. This page and many others contain auto-refresh code that artificially inflates page impressions and thus deceives the Adsense statistics and the advertisers from who’s funding you profit.
It’s also stupid because you can hardly be gaining much from that violation but risk losing the partnership entirely. I’m still in the process of deciding whether I should report this or not.
Well, the title of the law itself is a bit gender biased wouldn’t you say? Aside from that, I don’t think people are specifically trying to remove a law that protects women from violence, they are trying to have this law specifically address those who DO falsely accuse someone and cannot be held accountable for doing so.
To say that one person getting shafted to protect others is ok is a completely unfair thing to say. It isn’t as though just one person gets shafted, hundreds of thousands of people get shafted by the law, but that doesn’t even include the ripple effect it has over families. Just saying “I think something might have happened that he did to our child” is grounds enough to remove a man from the home, set a custody precedence, and completely destroy someones life who is otherwise a good father. Once the accusations are dropped completely the damage is already done.
Obviously there needs to be a protection in place for abused men, women, and children but this law is seriously flawed. So flawed that its constitutionality has been questioned because right to due process is stripped entirely. The law was only enacted in 1994 so statistics are sparse, but some publications have stated that as high as 70% of all false accusations occur during a custody dispute. Even if it was as low as 20%, that statistic alone still shows that the law is being abused and not always used as intended. More and more women are catching on that they are immune from any liability and even some divorce lawyers have used accusations as a strategy to get their client what they demand.
Personally, I think that holding false accusers accountable would have a tremendous effect on the amount of false accusations that take place. Not only would it be a major deterrent but it would also significantly decrease the amount of homes that are essentially destroyed. Please at least consider this before attacking those who may oppose certain parts of the VAWA.
I note that “ the author investigate[d] VAWA for himself,” and came up with this conclusion: “No wonder they had to fight it on the basis of Scary Scary Immigrants:
We can easily do some investigation of the “Scary” issue. To find out what is hidden behind the phrase “Scary, Scary immigrants,” see this news clip on Youtube: “CBS 5 Investigative report: Olga Chaikheeva of Shield Foundation, AKA-Arizona Russian Center” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZD1FUo57nrQ
And also this article by an insider who reveals the false accusation racket : http://www.saveservices.org/statement-by-encounters-international/
It turns out there are a lot of Good Investigators looking into this issue. The Good Men Project would do well in assigning an investigative reporter to looking into the experiences of men who are victims of fraud. Robert Franklin would be a good person to hire to do a multi-part investigative report on good men who are being targeted by criminals using VAWA to gain money, property and other desired benefits. The subject is too vast to be encompassed in just one or two long articles. And it requires a knowledgeable reporter like Franklin. Pop journalism, (emotions, opinions, ideological prejudices, sarcasm, cynicism) will not get the job done.
I support rights for women but i believe this bill could cause men to be arrested first in domestic violence cases. I believe that we should protect women but that we should also create more bills to include men. I have spent much time in poor ghettos times are changing women now can have kids get free or affordable housing while men have to take constant verbal abuse for being low wage earners.
TheHaveHopeNetwork.com