Home > Debate Club > Should the Violence Against Women Act Be Reauthorized? > It's Congress's Duty to Support Violence Against Women Act

It's Congress's Duty to Support Violence Against Women Act

Congress has a duty to support the Violence Against Women Act

Reader Comments
Back to argument

http://masculinists.net/2012/03/men-are-abused-more-than-women/

Drew Baas of SC 7:24PM March 21, 2012

http://www.change.org/petitions/hope-for-victims-support-the-partner-violence-reduction-act

Drew Baas of SC 7:22PM March 21, 2012

What "duty"? It is absolutely gender-biased. 200 studies affirm that most DV is mutual, and among young couples is more often initiated by women against men. Millions of men have been ousted from their homes and kept from their children simply on the basis of accusation without any evidence, and women tell more lies about it than men.

WAVA is not needed a there are enough other laws about violence. If it is still demanded it should be totally REFORMED to be gender-neutral

C Maloney of MD 3:16PM March 21, 2012

Jennifer seems to think that VAWA supports and helps men who are victims? Really? I think Jennifer really needs to read the research of Denise Hines who studied male victims who sought help and clearly showed that our present systems, the ones funded by VAWA, are not only unhelpful to men they are hurtful and blaming. Jennifer might want to study the Duluth Model which is the ideological banner of the VAWA folks and see how it actually blames men. Check it out:

http://www.clarku.edu/faculty/dhines/Douglas%20%20Hines%202011%20helpseeking%20experiences%20of%20male%20victims.pdf

Abstract For over 30 years, research has shown that men

can and do sustain intimate partner violence (IPV) from

their female partners. This is the first large-scale,

nationally-based, quantitative study to systematically detail

the helpseeking experiences of men who have sustained

IPV from their female partners. The sample is composed of

302 men who were recruited from resources specializing in

men’s issues. Results indicate that men who seek help for

IPV victimization have the most positive experiences in

seeking help from family/friends, and mental health and

medical providers. They have the least positive experiences

with members of the DV service system. Cumulative

positive helpseeking experiences were associated with

lower levels of abusing alcohol; cumulative negative

experiences were associated with higher rates of exceeding

a clinical cut-off for post-traumatic stress disorder. Results

are discussed in terms of implications for the social service

sector and for future research

Winter Berry of MD 9:43PM March 20, 2012

The author totally ignores male victims, just as VAWA does. The Centers for Disease Control's (CDC) very recent domestic violence study that found: "More than 1 in 3 women (35.6%) and more than 1 in 4 men (28.5%) in the United States have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalk...ing by an intimate partner in their lifetime" and "About 1 in 4 women (24.3%) and 1 in 7 men (13.8%) have experienced severe physical violence by an intimate partner (e.g., hit with a fist or something hard, beaten, slammed against something) at some point in their lifetime." See executive summary at www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf

Would the author support a "Men's Occupational Safety & Health Act" because 92% of job deaths are male? I doubt it. She would undoubtedly call that sexist. But VAWA explicitly discriminates against American-Indian men and implicilty discriminates against all men in its title and its implementation, not to mention having no due process protections at all, and spreading misleading propaganda about DV rather than directly helping all victims and their children.

Marc of CA 6:58PM March 20, 2012

"The Violence Against Women Act should be reauthorized as soon as possible."

Why as soon as possible? trying to push through something time to look it over might expose? Can taking our time to get a critical look at the proposal revel even more problems than are already present, problems you and your ilk seem loath to address, or even acknowledge?

"The issues that the act confronts, including domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking, are serious problems that benefit from this legislative effort to lessen their occurrence and help women to feel safer."

But do those issues benefit in a way that is fair, constitutional, and protected from abuse of their own? One does not push through a law that is riddled with problems just because it may have a positive effect on some (especially if it has a negative effect on so many others).

"As a man, it's easier to forget about the intense and constant fear that many women have regarding abuse, because many of us aren't subject to that sort of treatment."

Speak for yourself, not for the rest of us. far too many men ARE aware of the fear of being abused. Furthermore, they are aware that, because of this bills focus on women they will not be believed if they report it. many men fear if they do report it, THEY will be arrested, because of the very biased policies that exist within VAWA. Many other men are fully aware of the abuse that unscrupulous or angry women can make use of during divorce, again made possible by this bill and it's failure to acknowledge a woman can ever do wrong. So your attempt to shame men with "as a man, we should remember blah blah blah" is rather offensive to all those male victims who themselves suffer from the very fear you choose to deny them.

And like the other yes voters, you fail to even acknowledge the concerns raised in the article, let alone elsewhere. your argument is basically ignoring there are issues and concerns raised at all, and insistence we move forward, blindly accepting the bill does good for no other reason than some women (specifically) are victims. Not a very strong argument.

Mark Neil 5:31PM March 20, 2012

As someone who has personally benefited from this law, because my abuser lived in another state, I can speak more to what this law actually does. It does not exclude men from protected categories as the comments on this page suggest.

What it does is make it a federal crime to commit things like stalking, rape and domestic violence across state lines and in places where jurisdiction is unclear. The category of crimes covered are defined in a way that is gender neutral. IN other words, men are protected under stalking, rape and domestic violence laws. In other words, this law protects both genders.

For those idiots who think this excludes men, I just want to say, you probably shouldn't opine on things that you haven't bothered to take the time to read to find out if you opinion is even valid.

What this law does is it allows the feds to get involved with any interstate or trans jurisdictional crime involving violence against a person in the form of rape, sexual assault, stalking and domestic violence. And again, these crimes are defined, not by the gender of the victim, but by the crime itself.

So,even though this is the violence against women act, men are protected by this law equally. Without this law, people who are suffering from crimes that local jurisdictions cannot handle because the crime extends beyond the boundaries of the local jurisdiction, can actually get help. Because that is what this law does. It gives federal law enforcement jurisdiction to investigate these categories of crimes that local jurisdictions can't. There is NO downside to this law. It is idiotic not to review it and I would probably not be alive today if this law had not been passed. So stop being bone headed. Read up on what the law actually does and stop assuming you know.

Roy's assessment of why this bill needs to be renewed is correct. This should not be a partisan issue at ALL!

Jennifer Hancock of FL 5:12PM March 20, 2012

How many men are killed by women? How many are driven to bankruptcy and have their children taken from them by women manipulating the system and then commit suicide?? Is this not DOMESTIC VIOLENCE?? Why is the legislation not the "Violence Against People Act"? Because it is just a huge feminist pork project to pay off the left wing radical feminist "victim-hood" advocates. The Government is supposed to protect all people and not create special classes of victims while ignoring others. VAWA is sexist, bigoted, hateful, and unconstitutional.

Michael Parrotte of MD 4:23PM March 20, 2012

You have obviously not been a victim and think women are incapable of being the perpetrator. Take it from a divorced man for this very reason. I have been respectful of women and still am, because I was raised that way, but I have seen a very different picture in the marriage I was in. Getting a black eye, and another time having a wooden cutting board broken over my head after being told she was going to kill me. This was not enough so while I was trying to stop the bleeding from the gash in my head, She attacked me grabbing me by the testicles, all this in front of my 7 year old daughter. I was able to get loose with a great deal of pain from this strong woman and although I came close to decking her, I didn't retaliate. I could've easily beat her but I didn't because I don't hit anyone, period. VAWA is only for women and most often used to thrash a man whether guilty or not. Radical feminist use this act to destroy men and and their connection to their children. If equality is what women want, base an Act on it, not a one sided advantage for women.

Dale Pondysh of NY 2:22PM March 20, 2012

NO! VAWA and the Domestic Violence advocacy is a one way street. There is nothing available for men thanks to VAWA. In the US our Health and Human Services Administration is trying to increase the need for their services through VAWA, it's nothing but a scam. De-fund VAWA EXPOSE the federal funding abuses. Every VAWA sponsored organization pays lobbyists to omit facts and deceive legislative bodies. Document their deceptions and use facts from un-biased reports to EXPOSE THE TRUTH. Up to 90% of domestic violence accusations are false, many victims of the systemic abuse un-knowingly consent to protective orders only to be further victimized. NO contact with children, Loss of jobs, loss of income, loss of mediation all take place when lawyers routinely toss the defense of their clients cases. This is a large scale fraud against the American people creating the need for more legal services and social services, Hitler and Stalin both used the same tactics to destroy families. Look it up if you are skeptical, the truth will set you free.

Andy Stachura of NH 1:48PM March 20, 2012

<1 2 3 >