VAWA just exactly what is the idea really dependent upon?
How did it come to be; what is really behind it?
When one looks at the pros and cons they start to wonder; I mean really wonder. Could there be some fallacy; real or fictional behind it?
Are there some real or fictional fallacies behind it?
So in a sense women are not capable of violence when it states in the following links that they are.
So, would you say, and I'm going on on a limb with this, that it has come to be because of some stupid saying such as, "The courts in 1824 established the infamous "Rule of Thumb" allowing men to beat their wives so long as the stick was no thicker than their thumb" http://conev.org/women.html and, or
Husbands could legally beat their wives. http://www.angelfire.com/ca/HistoryGals/Chloe.html where as according to "In a landmark Alabama case in 1871, a court found that a husband did not have the right to physically abuse his wife, even "moderately" or with "restraint." In Fulgham v. State, the court ruled that a married woman deserved protection under the law. The ruling stated: A rod which may be drawn through the wedding ring is not now deemed necessary to teach the wife her duty and subjection to the husband. The husband is therefore not justified or allowed by law to use such a weapon, or any other, for her moderate correction." http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/2031/Abuse-Women...
Edit @ Doodlebug: Oh I am very familiar with the rule of thumb.
It's a hoax; like you said a lie. A lie that can be very convincing to those unaware.
Edit @ Two socks: There are more fairer avenuse that women can use besides a hoax such as the VAWA.
In 1991 I personally know a woman who called the cops on her husband; the VAWA didnt't exist, and she got help for her husband; he wasn't discriminated against but dealt with justly and kindly; something VAWA would not do. The couple are still married and have been for a long time. Who knows where they would be had she not called the cops. VAWA would have encouraged get rid of the bum; it doesn't care about relationships, except to destroy them. I'm sorry about you mom I really am.
Edit @ Eoghan; Yes, I've read about the poison that the VAWA is.
Edit @ Blue B: You're wrong; something spurned this change of direction: In a landmark Alabama case in 1871, a court found that a husband did not have the right to physically abuse his wife, even "moderately" or with "restraint." http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/2031/Abuse-Women...
It tells me that women did speak up; they just didn't lie down taking it. They did something. And they were rewarded for their efforts.
Most family law courts to my understanding encourages couples to stay together where warranted; VAWA doesn't. They always go for the throat; to them it doesn't matter 1st time or not - slash his throat throw him to the scavengers they'll deal with him. No compassion has VAWA I wonder if they even know what the word means. All men are dogs. Why do women need men they'll beat you soon as look at you - all the time.
No not all of the time.
It doesn't care about the unity of marriage always encouraging us women to think our husbands are nothing but dogs. Like I said no compassion.
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
VAWA is based on the false premise that only women are victims of domestic violence. It was updated in 2005 to include a clause that says that it applies to men too, but this is a very cynical token gesture to cover the obvious fact that the Violence Against Women Act is for women e.g. the word 'women' is used repeatedly, not the phrase 'men and women' or 'victim of violence' e.g. "The purpose of this part is to ...strengthen effective law enforcement and prosecution strategies to combat violent crimes against WOMEN, and to develop and strengthen victim services in cases involving violent crimes against WOMEN" [emphasis added] http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi...
There is an excellent paper by Professor Linda Kelly of University of Indionapolis School of Law that outlines the history of the feminist approach to domestic violence i.e. covering up the fact that the rates of domestic violence by women against men and men against women are very similar http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/download... Crucially, the feminist view that women are the only victims is now accepted by the public and legal system so that male victims are ignored or even laughed at rather than helped.
Lets not forget too that the definition of domestic violence has been distorted. In the US today the term 'domestic violence' has been expanded to include simply being "afraid" or "fearful" of harm from your partner. Two thirds of US states include in their definition "psychological distress" and a third include "harassment". Can you imagine a man insisting that his wife is arrested because he says she is harassing him? There is a good chance that he will be arrested instead, as happens to about 20% of male domestic violence victims who seek help from the police in the UK http://www.dewar4research.org/DOCS/PlightOfMaleVic... In the real world this definition of domestic violence only works when the accusation is made by a woman. In the opinion of Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusttes Bar Association, because the definition is so wide, it is wide open to abuse: "In many cases, allegations of abuse are now used for tactical advantage".
VAWA is one of the nastiest golems created by feminism, and the most sinister thing is that it is going to be spread worldwide http://www.freewebs.com/feminism-evaluated This will cost the US taxpayer some $875 billion dollars.
The 'rule of thumb' was never about domestic violence - this is a feminist lie. The rule of thumb came from carpentry http://www.debunker.com/texts/ruleofthumb.html
- cirielloLv 44 years ago
I had requested a query related to Christianity's insistence that Jews REJECT Jesus and the way is turns out not possible that we simply do not whatever him in any respect... Sigh It's the crisis Christians have had with Jews (and to a as an alternative lesser quantity Muslims) on the grounds that time immemorial. You're simply such a lot *like* us - too near for relief, actually, in lots of respects. Hindus appear absolutely overseas (more commonly extra so than they honestly are) and hence inoffensive, however the similarities of the sister-religions make the important thing variations appear gigantic; Jews - who percentage with Christians the Old Testament and perception within the God of the Hebrews - don't percentage our religion in Christ and hence need to (because the historical time-honoured reasoning is going) have stubbornly and maliciously rejected him. (Muslims repeatedly say so much the identical factor approximately each Christians and Jews relating to the revelation of Muhammad). It is saddening to peer this type of medieval reasoning on Y!A, however I could now not expect that it displays the perspectives of so much (grown-up) Christians (or Muslims for that subject).
- Anonymous1 decade ago
The gender-specific title itself clearly sends a message that men, but virtue of their gender and nothing more, have a fundamental propensity to engage in violent harm against women. Its very wording encourages women to use it willy nilly to harm men:
"VAWA encourages women to make false allegations, and then petition for full child custody and a denial of all fathers' rights to see their own children.... A woman seeking help from a VAWA-funded center is not offered any options except to leave her husband, divorce him, accuse him of being a criminal, and have her sons targeted as suspects in future crimes..."
—Phyllis Schlafly, JD
There's really nothing more to say other than it's a piece of bullshit and it's fertile soil for Feminists to abuse the legal system to destroy the lives of men.
- RawrLv 51 decade ago
In the UK, 1/4 of women will face domestic abuse at some point in their lives. So will 1/6 of men. Why isn't the VAWA gender neutral?
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Its based on a false premise and is intentionally sexist and discriminatory.
The feminist covering up of female abusers and exclusion of male victims only adds more fuel to the fire. Abuse starts in the home and mothers are the main offenders, their victims often go on to be abusers themselves.
These laws aren't evidence based either so they infringe on the basic liberties of men who are prone false accusations.
The bill was revised because it was in breach of discrimination laws and that led to training being given to law enforcement. They were told to arrest the larger of the two parties so more often than not a male phoning in for help with an abusive spouse will be arrested himself.
Imo VAWA and NOW are toxic influences in society, Gloria Steinem is a cia asset who since before she left college has worked in various programs that intend to destabilise society and "cut off the head of the family" as per Marxist/Leninist/KGB population weakening and destabilising techniques which ultimately lead to more control for the state/white ruling class while they use the average white hetero male as a scapegoat for their divide and rule, wars, slavery, racism and sexism.
Here is the story of how the CIA, Ms. Steinem and Ms magazine used the "cut the head off the family" technique to sabotage the African American rights movement in the 1970s.
Two Sox, there is a women called Erin Prizy, she is labeled anti feminist by the movement. She started the domestic violence movements in UK, UK and Iran. We all acknowledge the importance of working to stop abuse, we just don't want it being exploited by special interest groups that seek to protect female abusers and exclude male victims. If it were not for feminism we would have a gender neutral and inclusive abuse service.
Please dont liken us to holocaust deniers for lack of a better arguement.
- Standing StoneLv 61 decade ago
With all due respect this post disgust me. The police didn't step in 20 years ago when my mother complained about being beaten by my father. She is in a long line of battered women in my family. As you state those cases you site are landmark cases and isolated incidences of the courts actually stepping up for women. Do you actually take that as proof that wife battering wasn't prevalent in the past? Would you also argue that landmark cases like Brown vs the board of Education, or the Dred Scott decision prove that racism and Jim Crow are fallacies as well? While you're at it why not deny the holocaust?
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Feminism wants to promote women as strong & independant, while simultaneously portraying them as never-ending victims.
In short, it's always the same story with anything inspired from feminism; men bad/women good == men guilty/women innocent == men abuser/women victims
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Let's face it - in the old days, women hid their domestic violence and child abuse. These days they are encouraged to report it. Without the VAWA, many women would stay in a hopeless and violent situation. Many women cannot escape that situation even now, due to their fear of revenge against them and their children. But those women who have had the courage to leave and report will forever thank the VAWA because they have freedom and possibly their lives are saved.