Iım always looking
for ways to explain this complicated
issue in ways anyone can understand.
When Mrs. Phyllis Schlafly, Americas
foremost syndicated journalist on
family issues, asked if Iıd come and
speak today, Iıd just finished watching
a program on TV about the Thugs of
India, who for hundreds of years roamed
the countryside robbing and murdering
travelers. This is until the British
got involved in 1838. It only took
about ten years for the Brits to round
up and either jail or execute their
targeted individuals. They often jailed
entire families for life, in sex-segregated
quarters so they couldnıt reproduce,
because they believed one group was
congenitally evil. Thirty years later,
the 1871 Criminal Tribes Act validated
this notion, and set up a societal
mindset there that Iım told survives
until this day.
http://www.thehindu.com/fline/fl1912/19120450.htm
Toward the end of the program, they
got some commentary from a modern-day
Indian academic, who said the reason
they were able to ³deal with² so many
alleged criminals was that they changed
the definition of the term. Thatıs
the remark that made me sit up and
take notice, because itıs just like
the situation we have today with domestic
violence, and the Violence Against
Women Act.
Somebodyıs changed the definition
here, too.
Then I did some research, and I found
out that a lot of the entire story
of the Thugs and the way the British
handled things was more about establishing
authority in that country, and reacting
to hysteria and legend rather than
about dealing with a pressing social
issue.
It was about power and control. These
are incidentally, the same things
the feminists claim domestic violence
is all about.
In case you donıt know, and many people
donıt the Violence Against Women
Act was initially enacted in 1994.
Just as a note of interest, President
Clinton was urged by his mother to
veto the legislation, but he didnıt
listen. It sailed through reauthorization
in 2000, because hardly anyone who
could do anything to combat it knew
about it. Now weıre on the verge of
another reauthorization, which amounts
to a billion dollars a year of your
tax dollars going to support these
ineffectual and hidebound programs.
I really like that word hidebound
because it explains it all.
There are a lot of parallels between
the bigotry and arrogance of the Victorian
Imperial British and todayıs feminism,
which has its roots in that era. The
fact of that bigotry and arrogance
goes a long way toward explaining
why VAWA is so damaging to todayıs
American society while doing so little
to address whatever the actual need
may be.
We donıt know what that need is. Thatıs
because those who stand to benefit
financially from the proposed billions
of federal dollars have seen to it
that this is an issue not fully understood
by anyone.
While the penalties for domestic violence
arenıt yet life in prison, there really
canıt be any argument that any family
who has been through this system will
never be the same again. Iıve been
an activist for unserved victims since
1999 and have yet to hear from anyone
claiming that these programs have
helped them or their families. Iıve
got several websites that are viewed
by thousands of people every single
day, not to mention articles on many
other websites and other things, and
yet the people I hear from on this
issue are unserved individuals seeking
help, or those who directly profit
from domestic violence services. Employees
of womenıs shelters and hardline feminists
are the only ones who have any criticism
of my position.
Before they held the hearings this
time at the Senate on VAWA, the National
Coalition Against Domestic Violence
put out a call on the Internet requesting
those women whoıd been helped by existing
programs to come forward. Yet
those who ultimately testified included
only people in the direct employ of
services benefiting from VAWA grants,
and an actress engaged for the occasion.
Doesnıt that make you wonder?
This idea of a law protecting women
against domestic violence, which also
provides some sort of solution in
the form of shelters for victims,
jail or training for offenders, and
prevention programs for everyone,
is a noble idea -- on the surface.
I donıt think anyone would quibble
about that basic idea, especially
since it seems to be helping.
But what would you say if you knew
that noble idea was actually nothing
more than bigotry dressed up in a
pretty package? What would you say
if you knew that all the claims made
by those who run these programs about
the fine and admirable work theyıre
doing is based on nothing more than
their inflated opinions of themselves?
The Violence Against Women Act is
that bigotry dressed up, and circulating
in every community in the United States.
There are so many of these federally-funded
programs that no one seems to know
the exact number. Senator Crapo of
Idaho recently referred to ³over 3000,²
the NDVH has mentioned 4000, but nowhere
can you get a precise accounting of
these programs. Thatıs due at least
in part, to the fact that VAWA itself
is a massive document that is only
partially understood by the best of
us. Thatıs why it has been allowed
to pass, and stand for so long as
the ultimate authority on intimate
partner abuse. Those in a position
to eliminate this wrong-headed, and
ultimately damaging piece of legislation
may well understand it less than anyone.
Andrea Dworkin, the well-known anti-male
hatemonger, said herself that the
only reason this thing was passed
in the first place was that the legislators
didnıt realize what kind of a law
they were passing.
What Iım intending to do here today
is to show you how this act causes
harm to women and the general public,
without any appreciable benefit whatsoever
and at a cost that can never be recovered.
Even if it was just the uncounted
billions of dollars poured into this
idea by governments at all levels
as well as private industry, it would
still be a tragic waste. It is unfortunately,
the cause of broken homes, impoverished
women and damaged children numbering
in the thousands each year. It is
responsible for a rising rate of suicides
among men, and threatens to change
the way families live, and our culture
evolves. It has already done so much
damage to American society that even
if it were to be abolished today,
it would take years to restore our
way of life.
It has gone further than even the
concept of legislating morality
it attempts to legislate our emotional
lives and define our personal relationships.
Like the British Criminal Tribes Act
changed the definition of the word,
³criminal,² VAWA has changed the definition
of domestic violence to quite literally
mean anything a woman wants it to
mean. Because I am a woman, I can
phone any shelter in the country,
claim that my husband is abusing me,
and depending on my locale, become
the beneficiary of many government
programs almost immediately. I can
stay in a shelter which may provide
up to four months of counseling, group
activities, and round the clock security.
At no time will anyone ask me to provide
any evidence that I am in fact, being
battered or assaulted.
If Iım angry at my husband and want
to get revenge, I can have him jailed,
or in some states, like my home state
of Arizona, even kill him without
any concern for future repercussions.
All of that is available, providing
I have no male children over the age
of 12, and am not currently employed.
These kinds of considerations are
not available to men, either. It is
the Violence Against Women Act, after
all, and so men who are victimized
by out of control women cannot find
help.
Shelters do not want older boys, because
they are close enough to being men
to qualify as the enemy. (Shelter
workers claim abused women are afraid
of all men.) Shelters also do not
want employed women, because (they
claim) their perceived violent husbands
will follow them from their jobs and
reveal the closely-guarded secret
location of the shelter, which puts
everyone residing there at risk. Never
mind these odd policies have nothing
to with reality, or security. In the
past thirty years, how often have
you heard of an abusive man mounting
an assault on a womenıs shelter? I
know each of you reads your local
newspaper, and probably get even more
news from TV and the Internet. Have
you ever heard of a single case like
that? I know I havenıt.
I can only imagine the harm these
policies do to the children of those
women with a bona fide need for help,
yet are unwanted and rejected by these
programs. Not only have they been
beaten and terrorized by an adult,
now the very program that is supposed
to help them also tells them they
are no good. It wasnıt long ago that
Jan Brown, from the Domestic Abuse
Helpline, told me about a woman with
five children who was living in her
car, since no program in her community
in New York would accept her because
she had full-time employment.
How is this morally justifiable? Remember,
they do not want to provide their
kind of aid to women who are employed,
or those with older male children.
Why is that? Perhaps these women would
provide some resistance, or may not
be as vulnerable and open to their
ideas, since they have developed their
own self-reliance? And yes, youıd
be entirely correct if you thought
these kinds of policies were illegal.
They are. Equal access for all is
the federal mandate. The way these
programs get around the legalities
is by repeatedly insisting their services
provide equal access. As a member
of my local United Wayıs 2005 Allocations
Panel, I had the dubious privilege
of being in a room where the spokeswoman
for our local shelter, an assistant
of some kind (the Director apparently
had other plans that day) insisted
that 3 days alone in a fleabag motel,
which is the only service the unwanted
receive, at best -- was entirely equal
to a 120 day residential program,
which boasted free access to counseling
and group activities. If you repeat
a lie often enough, eventually everybody
believes it. I think these policies
are more about maintaining the mystique
of domestic violence, and keeping
the culture of secrecy surrounding
these programs than anything else.
Even the Allocations Panel was refused
access to our local womenıs shelter,
though all other agencies gave us
a tour of their facilities. We werenıt
supposed to ask why, either. I was
on the same panel in 1991. In those
pre-VAWA days, the local shelter was
as open as any other agency. I find
that today these so-called womenıs
shelters are given plenty of leeway
in their operations, leeway that is
not granted any other agency. Iıve
worked in and around non-profits for
a long time, and if any of the agencies
I worked for, such as the food bank
or senior citizenıs programs functioned
in the same way, theyıd be shut down
immediately. Today, those few women
who succeed in attaining help from
these programs find that not only
are they expected to file for an order
of protection and divorce, immediately
if not sooner ;>) younger
boys they have are expected to attend
so-called ³prevention² programs. Female
children of any age are not given
this training to prevent their future
violent activity, because under VAWA,
only males are capable of any kind
of violence. There is absolutely no
provision in any VAWA-enabled program
in the country for addressing the
problem within the context of a marriage,
or as it is, a complex issue of human
nature. Once a woman accesses a service,
decision making and control of her
life is assumed by that shelter or
service. These programs generally
claim to provide ³empowerment,² and
³empowering² programs.
This term has always made me feel
uncomfortable, because it implies
these women have no power of their
own and must turn to someone or something
else outside themselves (in this case,
either feminism or government programs)
for guidance. In 1994, VAWA validated,
with massive grant money, an existing
network of organizations called the
National Coalition Against Domestic
Violence. Each state has its local
chapter, and while their titles may
differ slightly from state to state,
the philosophy and driving force behind
each state agency comes from NCADV.
Taken from The AZ Coalitionıs website,
here is a portion of one of the pages
that defines what theyıre all about:
[START QUOTE] "USING MALE PRIVILEGE
As long as we as a culture accept
the principle and privilege of male
dominance, men will continue to be
abusive. As long as we as a culture
accept and tolerate violence against
women, men will continue to be abusive.
All men benefit from the violence
of batterers.
There is no man who has not enjoyed
the male privilege resulting from
male domination reinforced by the
use of physical violence . . . All
women suffer as a consequence of men's
violence. Battering by individual
men keeps all women in line. While
not every woman has experienced violence,
there is no woman in this society
who has not feared it, restricting
her activities and her freedom to
avoid it. Women are always watchful
knowing that they may be the arbitrary
victims of male violence." [END
QUOTE]
http://www.azcadv.org/HTML/usingmaleprivelege.html
Does this seem like a rational approach,
worth a federal program, supported
by everyoneıs tax dollars? If you
go to the website and read further,
you find they are quite comfortable
in rejecting out of hand any other
examination of the problem. Also note
that there is no consideration of
individual needs or circumstances.
If you were to check the websites
of each state chapter, you would see
the same mindless adherence to dogma,
with a greater or lesser degree of
hysteria in presentation, depending
on the organizationıs webmaster. While
the state coalitions do not provide
direct client services, they are very
much engaged in the initial referral
process, and determining policies
and procedures of individual agencies.
Those member orgs that do provide
services are required to maintain
strict adherence to feminist ideology
and the policies of the Coalition.
This is even in cases where the service
provider is a faith-based organization
and the tenets of their faith are
opposed to divorce. State coalitions
are also instrumental where availability
of funding is concerned, and to disagree
with their policies presents an obvious
financial risk to service providers.
There is no study or research being
undertaken by any VAWA-supported agency
to address the problem in any other
way than by the current non-approach.
They have no time to look for realistic
solutions, as they know, in that unique
feminist way of knowing, what is best
for women.
They have decided that women
cannot possibly know what is best
for them and their families. I think
theyıre becoming that same patriarchy
theyıve been fighting for decades.
Coalitions spend a large percentage
of their time lobbying for state,
local, and federal laws regarding
divorce, and special considerations
for those women who claim to be victims.
Mrs. Schlafly has pointed out that
this may well be illegal activity.
They promote such laws and policies
as "must arrest" which require
an arrest be made in any case where
the police are called, and "no
drop" which means that once a
charge of DV has been made it cannot
be withdrawn for any reason. This
removes any control of the situation
a woman may have thought she had.
These laws are already in place in
some locales. While services encourage
women to set in motion all the legal
machinery available to them, this
is done without ever explaining any
of the ramifications of things like
restraining orders, which are handed
out on simple request, without any
proof required. Often the man whom
the order is filed against has no
knowledge it exists, and violates
it through the simple act of
going home from work, at which time
he is arrested.
The fact of this order ever having
existed at all has the potential to
destroy a manıs career. Not only the
military, but many government agencies,
professional associations, and large
corporations have what they call ³zero
tolerance policies² against domestic
violence. In many cases, this means
a man can never work in his chosen
field again, no matter if the charges
are dropped, and the order withdrawn.
This bell cannot be un-rung. Iıve
seen this policy at work. This story
Iım about to tell will also explain
some of the abuses of the law that
happen every day, in every state.
A couple of years ago, I got a frantic
telephone call from a Marine Gunnery
Sergeant. This man had been in the
process of divorce. Note the operative
term is had been. On the advice of
her attorney, his X2B went to our
local shelter, claiming domestic violence,
even though no such thing had ever
occurred.
The lawyer (as many lawyers do) saw
it as a convenience that she should
lie her way into one of these places,
to give her the upper hand when it
came to child support issues. So she
went, and was so horrified by what
she was subjected to she literally
ran away, and called a friend for
help. Sheıd expected to go there for
a couple of hours and get some offers
for ³counseling or something², as
I was told. Instead she got a couple
of days of incarceration in their
lovely welcoming shelter, which she
had not planned for. Since she was
a military dependent, the Provost
Marshal was notified as a matter of
course. Her husband was immediately
arrested, and his son from a previous
marriage sent to Childrenıs Village,
the way station for kids on line for
foster care placement. This man cannot
reenlist, when the Corps was his career
choice. Thatıs why he called me.
People think that because I know about
these issues, I have a magic wand
or know something that can help them.
Thereıs not a single thing I can do.
There is no way around these ugly
no tolerance policies. Despite the
fact that they resolved their differences,
and she did her best to withdraw that
DV complaint, including visiting the
CO in his office and begging for mercy,
it will not go away. What alternate
career choices are there for a Marine
who expected to serve his country
until retirement? What kind of life
will this family have after a lawyer
advised them to do something really
stupid? The negative long-term affects
of divorce are never explained to
women who go to shelters, or the fact
that the divorce process itself, especially
if there are children can drag on
for years, until the children reach
adulthood and even beyond. I know
personally men who are retired, and
have grandchildren who are still paying
child support. If you have occasion
to visit a homeless shelter and talk
to some of the men there, you will
find a number of them whoıve left
their home states due to onerous child
support judgments they have no means
to pay. Theyıve chosen to live in
the streets rather than go to jail.
What the vast majority of people tell
me is this: ³If Iıd known what divorce
was going to be like, I wouldıve stayed
married.² They only find out
when it is too late that divorce is
no solution for a bad marriage anymore.
They also never bother to explain
that sometimes a divorce can lead
to situations of domestic violence
that never actually existed before,
due to the tremendous stresses placed
on all involved. Meanwhile, judges,
the legal profession, and law enforcement
agencies are getting training in feminist
philosophy under the guise of ³domestic
violence prevention² at public expense.
This training is also under the guidance
of state coalitions. The programs
themselves have been devised by feminists
who happen to have initials behind
their names due to affirmative action
policies and little else. They are
otherwise quite poorly educated. Iıve
encountered women with PhDs and MSWs
who were barely literate. Thereıs
a strange concept here that if you
make a law against something, it will
go away, and when that doesnıt work
you make laws that are even more stringent
and unforgiving.
Iım sure a lot of you have heard a
statement, something to effect that
³this community is getting tough on
domestic violence.² This only illustrates
how little these people advocating
these laws know about the issue itself.
The basic problem with abusive people
this includes men and women both,
in equal numbers those people who
abuse their spouses or children, donıt
think the rules of behavior that the
rest of us follow apply to them. The
woman who whacks her husband in the
back of the head with a CD case because
he forgot to bring home bread is not
thinking about the governmentıs opinion
of this behavior. Neither is the man
who throws his plate at his wife when
thereıs not enough salt in the potatoes.
Even if you put every adult male in
the country behind bars, there would
not be any end to domestic violence.
The Criminal Tribes Act had no effect
on crime in India, and the Violence
Against Women Act can have no effect
on domestic violence.
All VAWA does is employ people who
could not effectively function in
real jobs elsewhere. Mrs. Schlafly
refers to it as feminist pork, but
Iıll take it one step further: It
is nothing more than a welfare program
for the hardcore unemployable. VAWA
allows and promotes hate. It tells
little girls to fear their fathers,
and encourages grown women to act
like rabid animals. At the risk of
sounding disingenuous Iıll say it
is the worst thing for Americans,
ever. I have a beautiful infant granddaughter,
a brilliant and lovely step-granddaughter
entering her teens, and an accomplished
daughter-in-law I admire. These relationships
didnıt exist a year ago. There can
be no law the US government can enact
that will make me suddenly think of
my husband or son in negative terms,
just because we have these new women
in our lives. Yet VAWA creates suspicion.
It pays for anti-male posters in hospitals,
and nasty PR about dating in high
schools. We women are told to consider
our dear men as potential pedophiles
or abusers. How can we do this? This
law can be no more effective than
the monstrosity set on the Indian
people in the 19th century. How much
longer can we allow this new one?
------------------------------------
All special interests
create legislation that is beneficial
to them and almost be definition harmful
to others in some way. our founding
forefathers knew this would happen.
Their solution was to require jury
trials so that every case needed to
be proven to the level of many people.
They had the right to find the accused
innocent if they did not like the
law. This WAS the check and balance
against bad laws, snuck into passage
by special interests. However, judges
have now made it illegal to even inform
a jury of this right to find people
innocent if they believe the law is
bad. In fact they instruct the jury
to the contrary, saying they can only
decide based on certain criteria that
the judge lays out. This has short-circuited
justice in the U.S. today. Now no
one is safe from special interest
laws.
The VAWA is such
a law it was snuck into law by feminists
groups to redefine what violence is
(anything woman don't like including
"using logic" by the way).
It LITERALLY strips any man of his
constitutional rights as soon as a
woman says the word "fear"
in Massachusetts and many other states.
It is out of control and makes marriage
completely under the control of women.
Any man can be thrown out of his home,
have his children immediately taken
away and have his income attached
as soon as a woman goes in front of
a judge and says she is afraid.
There is no due process, you are not
even there, there need be no accusation
that any violence has even happened.
This is a travesty and an insult to
both women and men. Laws like this
will be the downfall of society over
time. It make marriage an impossible
situation for men because women can
leave anytime the want, take everything
and the man effectively is put into
economic slavery right away.
In Massachusetts not only will they
take 26% of you PRE-TAX income, but
the judge will order you to pay the
50% of you take-home pay to maintain
the home you just got thrown out of.
That means that man, guilt, innocent
we really don't know and no one cares,
now has to live on 13% of his income.
If you make $50,000 this is $357 per
month. This manufactures criminals
and is unconstitutional but happening
every single day. I have seen judges
CREATE divorces from little lovers
quarrels by issuing this orders when
it is very clear the statute is not
even met (as loose as it is).
Get outraged! |