Why is VAWA not gender neutral?
A victim is a victim... I don't see why women need to be protected more than men do.
- 9 years agoFavorite Answer
VAWA, along with the equal push for placing the definitions of rape and the burden of proof on the same footing of no proof at all, are prime assault lines by feminists against men in our society - and are calculatedly aimed at disempowering men.
The disempowerment occurs through the imposition of ANY legal constraint on any person without proper cause, through any physical restraint placed upon a person without proper cause, through the rape or normal rights by the imposition of violent constraint and restraint, and in any criminal action imposed on any person without cause - the direct results of which are that the person so afflicted becomes instantly less powerful in his/her own home and family, in society, in the courts, and in employment possibilities.
It doesn't take much thinking to work out exactly why these things are used by feminists and government in this way - they quite simply hand to women control and power in every part of our society without proper reason or proper usage of law - and also hand to that government, without proper cause barring the commission of a genuine crime, total power over the individual so accused.
Effectively these anti-laws are nothing but a grab for power over men by both of those self-interested bodies - and have virtually zero to do with cutting back on violence in any way. In fact, they have the opposite effect, since they are in themselves acts of violence, and permit proxy violence by the accuser without proper constraint, and by themselves being a violent and unlawful intrusion into the life of the ordinary person, create an inevitable backlash against both the accuser and against those who implement the abuse.
Think for one moment how easy it would be for a woman to get any job in competition with men who have been legally assaulted in this way and disempowered and artificially created into criminals - and how equally easy it is for that same government to continue with its campaigns of hand-outs to women without let while pursuing its nightmare of shoving men into the gulags of poverty and powerlessness. Any man thus violated has no chance of working as a nurse, teacher, a police officer, any public service position, as a lawyer, and so on - or, in many cases, even getting into the military.
Also this violent abuse of law becomes in itself a self-justifying event - since it creates its own hostility and reaction against it, which it then uses to 'prove' that the person who reacts against it in the normal way of any grievously offended party somehow needed to be constrained!
These twin campaigns of DV and rape are the spearheads of the feminist push for control in our society - and they are based on totally false figures and assumptions.
Finally - there is not one person in the ordinary community who approves or promotes the use of direct violence against anyone - and especially against women - and these who do are handled very roughly by the courts when they are genuinely guilty of violence.
Therefore these twin movements have no value and are nothing but instruments of violence and of oppression against those accused.
- Anonymous5 years ago
In reality I did not understand that. I regarded into the VAWA bill on some government web site and it was once about the identical trouble of arrest and precautions taken for the safety of the accuser and it was in gender impartial wording thoroughly. I hadn't heard some thing concerning the "Duluth model" whatevs i do not help this part of Vawa and that i nonetheless recall myself a feminist so there. As for DV shelters, yes there are basically none for men however they'll put guys up in hotel rooms if they search support.
- ʄaçadeLv 79 years ago
The ORIGINAL wording of the bill, then the law after passage, for example, supplied tax funding for womens' DV shelters, but denied funding for mens' DV shelters. The current version may have corrected that by now.
Also, the text of a law may be gender-neutral, but laws very often delegate specific implementation to agencies. The agencies then implement a biased (or not) policy. Again, usually a matter of obtaining public funding for a related project of some kind. Continuing the same example, you might apply to receive tax funding for your DV shelter, and get a grant for your womens' shelter, but apply the exact same thing for your mens' shelter and be denied without comment.
One COULD lookup the actual text of the bill's implementing law. ... or one could go to bed.
By the way, police in the field know that DV calls are most likely "mutual combat". That is what they typically encounter. And that is indeed what typically happens, as discovered by the research. It is not true that most DV is a male-only perpetrator; that is myth.
- Gun FanaticLv 69 years ago
It is because the feminist movement is currently controlling the domestic violence industry and they are doing everything in their power to suppress the truth about DV (and violence in general). In reality women are just as abusive if not more so than men in relationship, but feminists are trying to hide that fact under the rug since they want the mass to believe in the lie that only men commit abuse. It is mostly because of feminism's influences and its anti-laws (like the VAWA) that: many..many... female abusers have gotten away with committing act of violence toward men, and many..many... men have been falsely accused/arrested/imprisoned.Source(s): http://www.newswithviews.com/guest_opinion/guest68... http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/how-feminists... http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm http://www.lectlaw.com/files/fam27.htm http://breakingthescience.org/#domestic_violence http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/download...
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- BeerLv 79 years ago
The law itself was NOT gender neutral in its original form when written under Clinton administration.
That was fixed(except for the name) when it was reauthorized under the Bush administration in 2005(I think?) but what hasn't change is the implementation in everyday life and enforcement of the law by cops, judges, social workers and all other parts of the system.
It still remains heavily biased against men. Why? The reason is simple, it just follows the general attitude of society that violence against men is a non-issue and when committed by women against men - it's even funny. The reasons for that are multifaceted but deep down touch on the issue nurtured into all of us from early age that women are intrinsically more worth than men and that a woman's life is, for whatever reason, simply worth more.
- 9 years ago
Likely this law was put into place because violence against women was a larger issue (as it affected more people) than violence against men. It probably also has something to do with the general perception of women being that they do not stand a fair chance physically against a man.
- Layla JaneLv 79 years ago
The name itself says it all Violence Against Women Act. Feminists believe that women are always the ones to be abused; even were she to abuse him she's still a victim. He must have done something to cause it.
- poweranniLv 79 years ago
Well what is the solution? VAPA?
"Violence Against People Act?"
In principle I think that would be better. However it makes it a lot harder to implement. The name is so general, to render it meaningless. This is a domestic violence initiative, not a general renunciation of violence.
See, cops hate DV. They absolutely hate it because they get a call, and go in to diffuse the situation, and the battered (usually woman, but not always) turns on her rescuer, and can stab or shoot him. Houses and apartments are like labyrinths. Police go in, and she steps out of the hall closet all revved up, with a hatchet. That is why they have 4 to 6 cops, per call.
And then they go in, risking their lives, to not be able to do anything about it. Next week, 911 emergency, on the corner of Polk and 30th. Rinse and repeat, rinse, repeat ....
That is the deal with DV, from a law enforcement perspective.
So when the feminists come up with concerns about DV, it is a perfect opportunity to say "look, let's give police the opportunity to remove one of the parties.
A VAPA scenario is a bit difficult to implement. They really can't be standing around, discussing he said she said, and mediating, when people are ready to kill each other. That is potentially lethal.
So he goes. He is more likely to be a threat, than she is. I am fairly certain that they know this from decades worth of statistics and case reports ad nauseum. Men are also physically stronger, so all things being equal (they aren't) he is more dangerous.
He is also released between 24 and 72 hrs. Putting him in a holding area/cell/quarantine whatever you want to call it, actually allows both parties to cool off, and it actually serves as a deterrent, for the next time one of them starts in. Then they can start in on who started it, he said - she said.
VAWA also protects men. If she is going after him with a hatchet, wouldn't it be in his interest, if he is put in a jail cell, out of harms way?
Plus, I am not certain that it is always the man who goes. Why would it be? If it is clear that she is psycho, why wouldn't they take her?
- QLv 79 years ago
Show me where specifically in the bill it isn't. Don't say the title. Titles of bills are notoriously misnamed and used to garner support by painting it as something you just -couldn't- vote against. Patriot Act, etc.
You can't show me that's it's not gender neutral, I take it?
Here: Congressman Poe, a member of the House Judiciary committee, argues that men can still apply for the same services women apply for under the current law, but said: "I certainly agree with equal protection under the law. And maybe a name change is in order."
He added, "Certainly, I think that’s something that we could consider, because the law applies equally between men and women under the act already even though the name says only women. So I’m open to changing the name. Domestic Violence Act. I like that phrase."
The name doesn't matter.