The federal
Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is up for
reauthorization in 2005. VAWA funds billions of
taxpayer dollars to combat violence against
women, principally domestic violence (DV). The
definition of DV touted by victim advocates runs
the gamut from jokes and insults to murder, with
"power and control" being the overriding
characteristic of the man's behavior towards the
woman. Real violence is rarely at issue.
When women commit violence against men, VAWA and
the DV industry go AWOL. Despite the federal
government's own statistics showing nearly 40
per cent of domestic violence victims are men,
VAWA persists in its monolithic response.
In the same way that some minority groups
argue they cannot be racist because they aren't
in power in society, gender feminists contend
women cannot commit DV because they can't assert
power and control over men. Any violence
committed by women is, by definition, either de
minimus (it could not possibly have hurt him),
or self-defense (SHE is the victim of HIS
abuse).
All interactions between partners are subject to
this twisted logic. When the relationship
sours, the woman has an easy out: "I am a
victim of domestic violence and can do no
wrong." VAWA supports and maintains female
supremacy. It should be re-titled Victory
Assured for Women Act.
VAWA's gender bias permeates law enforcement
response to domestic conflict. All it takes is
a woman calling 911 to summon three squad cars,
teeming with police officers eager to carry out
today's "tough" domestic violence laws. The
centerpiece of the system is "mandatory
arrest." Every domestic disturbance call must
result in arrest, usually the man.
Domestic violence is whatever the man does that
the woman doesn't like. Declaring he is going
to file for custody of the children is a
"threat." Finding out she is having an affair
and demanding she stop is "abuse." Unknown to
most men, such interchanges often precipitate
false charges of DV. In my 17 years as a family
law attorney, I have seen this pattern occur
over and over.
Even when the facts clearly show the man is
not an abuser (and perhaps the woman is),
prosecutors refuse to drop charges. "No-drop"
policies are a great publicity tool, and a way
to ensure more funding. Charges that would
never see the light of day if they happened
between strangers on the street (accidentally
bumping against someone when walking by), are
routinely charged as DV "assault." (But only if
the man does it to the woman; a man can be
bleeding from a head wound and he won't be
considered a victim).
Indiscriminate charging clogs the system with
minor transgressions, yet ensures a steady
stream of cases justifying more taxpayer money
at budget time.
Both spouses are usually at fault when a
marriage ends. Many women have discovered a
surefire antidote against taking any
responsibility: playing the domestic violence
victim. While the husband is reading the
newspaper and relaxing after work, the wife is
contacting the domestic violence hotline,
getting step-by-step instructions on what to
say: "His abuse is escalating," "I'm fearful
for my safety."
VAWA funds battered women's shelters and their
misandrist staff, always ready to welcome
another customer for their anti-male,
anti-father and anti-family agenda. Ask a
victim advocate what causes domestic violence,
and she will immediately blame our "patriarchal
society," ensuring that only men get the blame.
One might ask what causes women to abuse
children. Presumably, the patriarchy by proxy.
VAWA gives short shrift to child abuse, which is
most often committed by women. Indeed, VAWA
earmarks a paltry $7000 per year to develop home
visitation projects to look for signs of child
abuse or neglect.
To assure victory in the divorce/custody
case, the woman claims the man is an abuser, no
matter how good a husband and father he is.
Whatever wrongs he has committed, from leaving
the toilet seat up to not making enough money,
failure of the marriage is his fault.
"No-fault" divorce laws really mean "no fault
unless it's the man's fault." In other words,
the Oprahization of family law.
What we really have is MAWA: Men Annoying Women
Act. The man is either a relentless abuser or a
hopeless wimp. Any modern man not terrified of
being in a relationship with a woman has not
been paying attention.
The government seems unable to define gender
bias except as "bias against women." Title IX
forces college sports programs to spend equal
amounts of money on men's and women's sports,
despite the fact that the vast majority of
athletes are men. Even though 1/3 of domestic
violence murder victims are male, not one dime
of VAWA's largesse is devoted to prevention of
violence against men.
Men are far more likely than women to be victims
of violence overall, yet there's no Violence
Against Men Act. Men also comprise nearly all
workplace injuries and deaths, but try to find a
Male Workplace Injury Prevention Act.
VAWA is not about stopping violence. It is
about greedy special interests slopping at the
federal trough, perpetuating gender supremacy
for women. If proponents were truly concerned
about helping victims, they would demand that
all intervention and funding be gender neutral
and gender inclusive.
The existence of male victims threatens gender
feminists because it knocks the underpinnings
out of their theory, that the "patriarchy"
causes men to abuse women. The DV industry has
succeeded in creating the "victimarchy." With
VAWA in their corner, women win no matter what:
victim or abuser, they can do no wrong.
