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.
Image of Man strikes another courtesy of Shutterstock
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
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.… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
Here’s some reinforcement from a wise woman on the other side of the Pond: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhTdonT1g4w
Here it is, VAWA feminists in Washington saying that children being abused by their mothers does not come under their work and domestic violence.
https://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!
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,… Read more »
Wow, I can’t believe someone is trying to make the case that something called the “Violence against Women act” isn’t gendered.
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.
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… Read more »
*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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
Hi Noah, I’m reposting this from over at NSWATM: Sec. 402 (b): USE OF FUNDS.—The research conducted under this section shall include evaluation and study of best practices for reducing and preventing violence against women and children addressed by the strategies included in Department of Health and Human Services-related provisions this title, including strategies addressing underserved communities. Sec. 41305: ENGAGING MEN AND YOUTH IN PREVENTING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, DATING VIOLENCE, SEXUAL ASSAULT, AND STALKING. And specifically Sec. 41305 (c.1.B): to create public education campaigns and commu- nity organizing to encourage men and boys to work as allies with women and girls… Read more »
One has gotta really wonder about this editor based on reality: https://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.
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.
Julie responded to Peter Houlihan (in a comment horribly nested): “Anyone who is a psychopath/sociopath and is clever enough to know how to game a system WILL game a system, no matter their gender.” Julie, many on here have been talking about the system (VAWA) and talking about the *very serious flaws* that allow abusive women to get away with violence, or non aggressing men to be put into jail on an angry women’s say so. In other words (unlike some of the posters you have been arguing with) we haven’t been saying “all women do X,Y, or Z” but… Read more »
John D: “The response for our troubles on offering proof of how broken the system is and how women can *easily* game it to abuse or jail men has been to be called liars.”
Or worse, Mysoganistic women haters.
For MRA’s who point what you say out as well, they’re labeled “Wife Beaters”.
Guys, I’m getting put under moderation again for much of my comments lately. Fix it up, please.
I’ve seen only one of your posts in mod today. The one I just approved. No one is putting you there, it’s a key word issue most likely.
Haven’t seen any either.
Maybe it would be better if I knew what keywords put posts into moderation so that way I’m less paranoid about posting a response. Somebody wish to warn me ahead of time?
I have been having the moderation blues also—but not on this article. Actually, I am pretty surprised at the comments going through on the “Why I let my son get snipped” article (which I can only get to through google, I cannot find anyway to access that article through tgmp). I believe my comments were being stricken, but I now think that what is happening is that when I move between pages in comments I lose my “logged in” state and can no longer see my own comments that are stuck in moderation. I don’t know if that is the… Read more »
It was the middle of the night. No one was putting anyone anywhere. No one is moderating in the middle of the night. Key words can sometimes trigger automatic mods and then the staff goes through and looks for pieces that need to be approved when they are on duty, as volunteers. This has been explained many times and it is not anything personal. If it were, a mod or Lisa would email the person and discuss with them the situation. This has also been explained many times. Whenever anyone has a question about modded comments, they can email Lisa… Read more »
Right, I wasn’t laying blame. I was trying to explain a misconception I had. When I moved between pages in an article I lost my “logged in” state at the bottom (my name and email no longer appearing in the boxes). Due to this, my comments under moderation (that others can’t view) disappeared as my browser or the websight treated it as a new view of the page. Having seen my comments under moderation seeming to disappear, I jumped to the conclusion that my comments had been stricken. Jumping to conclusions seems to be the word of the day for… Read more »
Not jumping to anything, just trying to explain again to anyone else who is confused. We at GMP know that it’s very easy for people to assume they are being modded, when it’s more of an automatic thing. We just ask that you contact us rather than derail threads with it. Not you particularly but anyone.
Actually,
I wasn’t referring to you when I mentioned jumping to conclusions.
Well, then we are all good then.
Why wasn’t this law tackled the way the Affordable Care Act handled?
Why didn’t tgmp publish an article stating:”hey we have been hearing some bad press about VAWA. If you are critical of VAWA and have some research or evidence, feel free to share it with us”
There should be a drive to get at the heart of somebody’s criticism of something before responding.
You just may be surprised to find the critics have very good points.
I’d imagine this was independantly posted by Noah, than part of a concerted drive to support Vawa, but it’s a good idea. If you don’t mind I’m going to pass it on to Lisa. I’m not an editor or anything but she might be interested.
genderless language is not the issue
due process laws, or the lack of them, are the issue
any male who is accused of domestic violence under VAWA or a related state domestic violence law, can be arrested and prosecuted without a shred of evidence
it’s not a “good law”
So I’ll play devil’s advocate here and advance what I *think* the feminist position is on VAWA and its explicit gendered objective. So imagine we can classify the relationship between a victim and his/her assailant into three groups: non-affiliate, affiliate and intimate. Non-affiliate assailants would be the stranger you meet in the parking lot who puts a gun in your face or the unknown person(s) who steal(s) your property in the middle of the night. The victim and assailant have never met and have no prior relationship. Affiliated assailants are people known to the victim by association to a gang,… Read more »
” I’m going to suppose that we agree that a man is more likely to suffer at the hands of a non-affiliated or affiliated assailant while a women is more likely to suffer at the hands of an intimate assailant.” What’s this supposition based off of? Because it contradicts your following line claiming to not say anything about distribution, because you have said victims are distributed more amongst females then males in this line, and actually require this to be true in order to continue. Or are you speaking ratios, such as 30/40/30 for men and 10/10/80 for women, in… Read more »
Great point
I think Random may have meant total raw numbers rather than distribution.
Yep, you’re on the right track, but you could go further….consider that it would be entirely possible to have 60% of all intimate partner victims be male while having only 1% of men and 30% of women experience intimate partner violence if it happens that 60% of the violence happens to 1% of men while 40% of the remainder happens to 30% of women (extreme skew for illustrative purposes). Basically, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. You can get proportions to argue whatever you want depending on what you use as your basis and how you define your population.… Read more »
Do you believe that the legal system has become effective in recognizing, policing etc crime by affiliate and non? I’d say so. I also agree that intimate violence has only pretty recently been understood as an issue, mostly because of feminism. The problem is, of course, that men who have experienced intimate partner violence from women (or from men in gay relationships, or women from women in lesbian relationships) are less likely to report, less likely to be believed because of how the process of recognizing intimate partner violence has occurred over time, and is gendered to a great extent… Read more »
Which is why you have the creation of “from ideology to inclusion” a yearly seminar which includes many from the medical fields, DV establisment, and mental health experts to concentrate on those things which reduce violence, rather than relying on the broken “duluth wheel” method which says the majority of violence is male on female and is due to patriarchy and the idea that men exist in a culutre that reward them for putting women “in their place”. The alternative methods of couples counseling teaching conflict resolution and impulse control and reducing behaviors which increase violence (like drugs and alcohol)… Read more »
Agreed, I can accept that the avg women *probably* has a higher risk of experiencing domestic violence than the average man (or not, it really doesn’t matter) its just frustrating that domestic violence is so deliberately gendered in our culture (and when I say culture, I’m referring to far more than semantics in a bill). By contrast, we don’t genderize murder even *if* men as a population are more likely to experience that crime. Its almost likely we’re attempting to compensate for some shortcoming. Oh, I just looked up the Duluth Wheel. Holy hell! And that section on “using male… Read more »
Well done, Noah. I haven’t seen an opinion so uneducated on this site before. Did you even glance through this thing before cherry picking this section?
You seriously want to take MRA’s to task for being pissed about VAWA? Jeez, AVFM is going to have a field day with you I bet.
There’s a big difference between this site and NSWATM. You can’t make cheap and unfounded attacks on MRAs here and expect it to go unchallenged.
*when men were not raised to be neutered …
Because that’s the “natural” state of things? How about NO one slapping or hitting each other or trying to wield power plays over each other?
There is nothing neutered about people treating each other with gentleness. God.
I’m not sure exactly what angle doug1111 is up to but the neutering he speaks of could be related to the double standard that males should never hit females but with no reciprocation.
Now ideally treating each other with kindness would be the way. But that’s not how I learned it.
“But that’s not how I learned it.”
Nor I. My mother would occasionally drill the point into me by saying “don’t hit women” as she punched me in the sternum and knocked the wind out of me.
Furthermore, that’s not how the law teach’s it ether, or at least the training the law enforcement receives. Nor the media that jokes about male penis severing and gets all upset about a man grabbing a woman’s arm to lead the way (Tom Cruz with Holmes)
Then she was abusing you. And that’s flat out wrong. I wasn’t taught to hit anyone, in fact taught not to hit anyone. I was hit by no one in my family. Do I ever want to hit people? Of course I do. Women are plenty desirous of acting out. Some of them do. They are wrong. They should be treated as if they were wrong.
Anyone abusing anyone needs a) penalty b) counseling.
Being taught not to do something isn’t enough and never has been. Children aren’t simply taught not to hit. When you were a child you knew there would be repercussions for being violent with your peers. Most women beyond the playground rightly realize that there are very few repercussions against certain behaviors that they were previously taught is unacceptable. The incentive to do them remains more or less the same into adulthood, but the actual restraint is removed. Results proceed as expected.
Then why don’t I accuse some man of hurting me? If I apparently can get away with it, why wouldn’t I do it?
Julie, some women do.
And many, many don’t.
I’m quite clear on my stance that anyone abusing/injuring others, should be penalized.
Julie, I’m not sure what point you are making. You asked the question “Why not?”and I afforded you a demonstrable answer. The issue isn’t with normal, well-adjusted women, it is with the laws that allow maladjusted women to abuse men and get away with it. I have spoken with women who think it is fine for them to slap their dates, to pour drinks over men’s heads, to throw objects at them. They react with horror at the mere suggestion a man might hit them back. To them that is so WRONG. The problem is the law and police procedures… Read more »
And I agree that the problem is the law and police procedures.
And frankly, I wonder about how all these people are growing up so maladjusted. I guess I had it really lucky.
That’s a question only you can answer. Perhaps you have too much pride to use such underhanded, cheating methods. Perhaps you don’t want to devolve into the abuser yourself. But these are personal reason, not societal. Furthermore, it doesn’t address those that DO do it. Many men don’t abuse their wives, should we not bother having a discussion on it? Should we stop bothering to promote awareness?
I’m really quite confused what your point is, because it sounds an awful lot like “I don’t do it, which means not all women do it, so it’s not a problem”.
Yep, I have too much pride to use underhanded cheating methods! I just abuse straight out, Mark! Nice implication, there. Jesus. Many many men don’t abuse their wives, absolutely! I never said they did! and of course it’s a problem. Good fucking god, Mark. Why the hell would I work at this site if I didn’t think violence against men was a problem? The courts should penalize any person who engages in abuse or violence (sexual or otherwise) on another person. that person should be made to get counseling as well. Of course, I realize that given our current financial… Read more »
“Yep, I have too much pride to use underhanded cheating methods! I just abuse straight out, Mark! Nice implication, there. Jesus.” Funny, I was under the impression I was acknowledging your statement you don’t do it. My point was, and I do believe I said this, is that your reasoning for not doing it is yours alone. It isn’t because society has told you it is unacceptable, that the laws have deemed it punishable. Before I respond to the rest of what you have to say, however, I would like two things clarified. 1: do you or do you not… Read more »
You said, “Maybe you have too much pride to use underhanded cheating methods.” Which read to me like…whatever. It doesn’t matter at this point. I don’t need pride to not use a “method” because I am not maladjusted enough to think that hurting or manipulating someone is a good idea. It’s a terrible idea. Society HAS told me that. My family and culture and schools and church and people I spend time with HAVE told me that/modeled it and frankly, if I hit someone, it never would occur to me that I wouldn’t be punished for it. And it’s a… Read more »
@Julie: Again, I think he was trying (badly) to say that you aren’t a bad person, just that other people who are are enabled to abuse others by legislation like VAWA.
It’s not the issue that you don’t, it’s the issue that you could. I don’t think Kyle was saying that all women are violent psychopaths, even if he came close. I’m pretty sure he was saying that the women who are violent psychopaths realise that their behaviour is enabled by gendered society and take advantage of that fact to harm other people.
I’m sure you’re a lovely person 🙂
Not that Julie needs it, but in her defense, I think what she’s been saying about men and women abusing/being abused happens to appear in a heated thread. She said from the start that she believes that VAWA is off the mark. What I hear her saying is that men and women need to be held accountable but more importantly have to pull up on the violence.
I am entirely too patient, diplomatic and forgiving, that’s one of my flaws.
And so the issue should be to legally address the issues around violent psychopaths, male or female. And one way of doing that is by eliminating gendered roles and responses (and something that women have to take responsibility for, I agree). Anyone who is a psychopath/sociopath and is clever enough to know how to game a system WILL game a system, no matter their gender.
@Julie: I agree, and I understood you did too. I was just offering my reading of kyle’s comment
Yes many women do make false accusations. More slap, stomach punch and shove husbands and boyfriends since they know under VAWA, men can’t retaliate in kind or just with a slap (or shove). Of course I think that beating up one’s wife or female domestic partner, or husband or male domestic partner should be punished as domestic violence. But no I don’t think a no or only trivial injury (slight wrist bruising or scratching) slap or shove should be criminalized with 90 day orders of protection, requirement that he hire a lawyer, go to court multiple times etc. all when… Read more »
Yeah, I saw plenty of women slap, punch their bf’s/partners in school and after even publically, no one bats n eye. These particularly women generally have entitlement issues and control their bfs, you’ll commonly hear “pussy whipped” thrown around because these guys don’t reciprocate, nor do they even speak up against it, they just allow the shit to continue. I’ve had women slap me when I was younger, I’d go OI but at the time I was caught in the whole omgwomengivingmeattentionyay spell from my insecurity and didn’t speak up enough. I wonder how many people suffer through these bad… Read more »
You bring up an interesting point. I remember a study being talked about on F&F. It stated that the #1 indicator of whether or not women will be injured due to domestic combat is their level of unprovoked attacks. Look at “teen mom” star Amber Portwood attacking Gary Shirley (for which she was charged for either this aired segment or another). ht tp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PG1tG7WhHXE Imagine the harm this guy could do if one day she pushes him past his breaking point (and when that happened would a battered husband defense ever apply? I have *never* heard of any man successfully using… Read more »
People get mad and lose their tempers. Women are almost never arrested and subjected to 90 days temporary orders of protection unwanted by either spouse or domestic partner, for mere no or trivial injury slapping but men are all the time if she just calls 911, which women do far more than men when they’re mad and often mad and drunk. Men shouldn’t be arrested, get those 90 day more out of their homes orders and no communication whatsoever, have to hire a lawyer and go to court repeatedly for some so trivial as a no or only really trivial… Read more »
Furthermore Doug is that thanks to no-drop prosecution if a woman says she lied in the heat of anger the prosecutor will not drop the charges. Even if it was slapping or shoving, VAWA gives grants to PD’s and prosecutors to move forward with the charges. Even if there were extreme extenuating circumstances (like being fired, death of a loved one, or being drunk) and the assailant has no criminal record (in other words indicators he is at low or no risk to reoffend) the prosecutor is directed to move forward with charges. This violates one of the commandments of… Read more »
VAWA is a terrible law because it’s too hair trigger and it treats uncorroborated and often rather implausible claims by women upset at the moment on a 911 call as automatically true. Sure serious and real domestic violence should be and was before VAWA illegal, but VAWA turns a non injury return slap by a husband or male domestic partner into an automatic arrest if merely claimed by her on her 911 call even if she tell police she doesn’t want him arrested. Further he’ll get an automatic temporary restraining order that will force him to move out of his… Read more »
There should be a violence against men act which punishes women twice for being the privileged sex when it comes to violence and grant anonymity to male victims because they it’s harder for them to come out. “Notice anything? The complete lack of gendered language, maybe?” and since it’s called the violence against the women act, there’s no need to point out that the victim is female by default? Or more correctly a ‘woman’, I am behind on the trans vs lesbian debate on what constitutes a woman. Even if we disregard this act, the victim is still female when… Read more »
The most common form of male violence, is against other males. Gotta love misinformation…
“The most common form of male violence, is against other males.”
That was my thought.
Yes, they’ve done themselves no favors by calling it the “Violence Against WOMEN Act”.
It’s hard for anyone to make the argument that the law is not inherently biased when that’s the title of it. Imagine if we had a “Get Men Back to Work Act” which was really just a jobs bill for everybody, not biased against women, wink wink.