Violence Against Women Act Is a Totalitarian Violation of Democracy

The Violence Against Women Act is an egregious departure from justice and common sense

Reader Comments
Back to argument

" He gradually began to tear down my self esteem, but like I said, he was subtle about it. We argued, but I thought all couples argued from time to time. It wasn't until 3 years into the relationship that he began to constantly find fault with me"

This behaviour isn't gendered. Both men AND women are capable of doing this. Both are capable of violence as well, and once you've been stripped down by the psychological (and combined with the male teachings of never hit a women), any size advantage a man may have had is virtually gone. And while a woman may not be able to put her hand around her husbands throat, she has VAWA instead, to make certain if a man steps out of line, she can destroy his life, tear his children from him and maintain the lifestyle she lived with him, while he lives in squalor.

As to women being against VAWA...

http://womenagainstvawa.org/

Mark Neil 10:27AM March 26, 2012

Imagine a country where you could be forced from your house and kids based solely on a lie.

Imagine a country where you appear in court, guilty until you prove your self innocent.

Imagine a country where you if you cannot afford and attorney, one was not provided to you.

Imagine a country where you cannot subpoena evidence by those that accused you.

Imagine a country where even if you prove yourself innocent, your accuser is never held accountable for their actions.

You don’t have to imagine, it is the USA under VAWA.

Oh-Fudge of VT 5:32PM March 24, 2012

I apologize A.R.A. for stating facts (rhetorical questions) not in evidence.

In addition, women need to know they are not powerless. They can use the power of leaving. Why did you not leave? Why did you not arm yourself? Go to a practical state that allows people to carry firearms. Also, there are shelters. I am sure there are more things that I don’t know about.

No adult should be terrorized by a bully. Take action. If absolutely nothing else works, and I think that highly unlikely, then women need to take it to the level of the bully. I can’t elaborate because it would be considered highly offensive to many.

In any event, I thank you for sharing this concrete experience with us, people without your expert knowledge. We are just talking here. People can change their minds.

Paul of LA 12:28AM March 24, 2012

"I keep checking this post to see how many WOMEN comment on VAWA and so far, almost all the responses are from men. Of course MEN are against VAWA since they potentially have the most to lose from this legislation, but I want to know why women are against it since they are the ones who would supposedly benefit from it."

Because it removes a man's right to due process. VAWA violations also so hard to disprove in court, yet the penalties are very severe. In short, you're guilty until proven innocent.

Stagger Lee Louchay. of MN 12:00AM March 24, 2012

To answer your question, Paul of LA,

NO, I did not intentionally choose to be with someone who was known to be bad. I never wanted to be with someone who was a tough macho guy, but I originally chose my partner because he was sentimental and sweet and treated me like I was somebody important. He was a smooth talker and unfortunately I fell for it. His abuse was subtle at first - he would play mind games with me to make me doubt myself. He gradually began to tear down my self esteem, but like I said, he was subtle about it. We argued, but I thought all couples argued from time to time. It wasn't until 3 years into the relationship that he began to constantly find fault with me and at that point I did try to leave - which is the first time he attacked me, holding me against the wall by my throat and telling me that if I tried to leave with his son he would kill me. I believed him and since the police did not help me, I stayed. I did not want to die.

I have met several people like your aunt who purposely date "tough guys" because they are "cool" and then wonder why they are abused, but I am not that person. MOST abusers DO NOT portray a tough guy image because if they did, it would be harder to attract a woman who was easy to control. In fact, the worst abusers out there are the ones no one would ever suspect - they have great jobs and know how to say all the right things to all the right people, they are likable by the general public and hold a "good guy" image - and they can do this because they are masters at the art of manipulation.

I keep checking this post to see how many WOMEN comment on VAWA and so far, almost all the responses are from men. Of course MEN are against VAWA since they potentially have the most to lose from this legislation, but I want to know why women are against it since they are the ones who would supposedly benefit from it.

A.R.A. of NC 10:08PM March 23, 2012

Violence Against Women Act is sexist. Violence Against Partners Act is gender neutral. Since BOTH genders suffer violence at the hands of their respective partners, it MUST be approached on a gender neutral level.

I have called all my state representatives and told them my thoughts on this.

Susan of CO 1:56AM March 23, 2012

Concerning the poor lady that was psychologically abused with threats for seven years, most of us feel bad for her. But as in the case of my aunt that I mentioned earlier, she chose this life I will bet. Was he generally known as a bad ass or tough guy before marriage? At the first sign of violence against her, did she bolt as most women would?

Such a choice does not justify the low man’s behavior, but it illustrates how sugar daddy, the federal government, is again being asked to bail out poor choices by some women. Worse it is demanded that men are guilty until proven innocent because of the liberal belief that males and females have no traditional roles. Women no longer must play the role of a person that usually should have the consent of her family to marry. Men no longer usually should have the permission of the woman’s family to marry.

Paul

Paul of LA 11:47PM March 22, 2012

Societies throughout history have had a tendency to demonise one group and to protect anothers. It seems to serve some sort of deep need to belong while at the same time justifying the targeting of others. We see that in the US today with blacks and whites, with straight and gay. History is full of it. Jews were demonised, christians, catholics, witches.

Now it is men who are to blame for everything. The attitude is based on a stereotype. It is particularly maintained by research bias in medicine (paediatricians) and by those doing crime surveys. Sadly the stereotype is so deeply entrenched that even those educated in the Law are too keen to apply the maxim that "everybody is equal, but some are more equal than others".

Factsseeker 7:50PM March 22, 2012

The VAWA is the worst piece of HATE legislation ever concocted by a very misandrist government. Its time to END THE HATE! Its time to stop government tyranny and war against half of the people. Its time to end this HATE law and let it expire.

Bob Knows of WA 6:58PM March 22, 2012

Janice Shaw Crouse is exactly correct on this issue as far as I am concerned.This victimizies both women and men.It is totalitarian in its nature and essence.We can't continue making special legislation for every special interest which tends to undermine the greater good in that by way of attrition it erodes our liberty interest.Any particular crime against women and I agree they are epidemic is covered under the constitution as it exists.

Kevin Thomas of IN 11:29AM March 22, 2012

<1 2 3 4 5 .. 7 >