Posted on 07/12/2011 11:32:08 AM PDT by Kaslin
The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), now up for reauthorization, is in major need of revision. Its billion-dollar-a-year price tag spent by the radical feminists to pursue their ideology and goals (known as feminist pork) make it an embarrassment to members of Congress who voted for it.
For 30 years, the feminists have been pretending that their goal is to abolish all sex discrimination, eliminating all gender differences no matter how reasonable. When it comes to domestic violence, however, feminist dogma preaches that there is an innate gender difference: Men are naturally batterers, and women are naturally victims (i.e., gender profiling).
Starting with its title, VAWA is just about as sex discriminatory as legislation can get. It is written and implemented to oppose the abuse of women and to punish men.
Ignoring the mountain of evidence that women initiate physical violence nearly as often as men, VAWA has more than 60 passages in its lengthy text that exclude men from its benefits. For starters, the law's title should be changed to Partner Violence Reduction Act, and the words "and men" should be added to those 60 sections.
The law should be rewritten to deal with the tremendous problem of false accusations so that its priority can be to help real victims. A Centers for Disease Control survey found that half of all partner violence was mutual, and 282 scholarly studies reported that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men.
Currently used definitions of domestic violence that are unacceptably trivial include calling your partner a naughty word, raising your voice, causing "annoyance" or "emotional distress," or just not doing what your partner wants. The law's revision should use an accurate definition of domestic violence that includes violence, such as: "any act or threatened act of violence, including any forceful detention of an individual, which results or threatens to result in physical injury."
Women who make domestic violence accusations are not required to produce evidence and are never prosecuted for perjury if they lie. Accused men are not accorded fundamental protections of due process, not considered innocent until proven guilty and in many cases are not afforded the right to confront their accusers.
Legal assistance is customarily provided to women but not to men. Men ought to be entitled to equal protection of the law because many charges are felonies and could result in prison and loss of money, job and reputation.
Feminist recipients of VAWA handouts lobby legislators, judges and prosecutors on the taxpayers' dime (which is contrary to Section 1913 of Title 18, U.S. Code), and the results are generally harmful to all concerned. This lobbying has resulted in laws calling for mandatory arrest (i.e., the police must arrest someone -- guess who) of the predominant aggressor (i.e., ignore the facts and assume the man is the aggressor) and no-drop prosecution (i.e., prosecute the man even if the woman has withdrawn her accusation or refuses to testify).
The feminists' determination to punish men, guilty or innocent, is illustrated by the capricious April 4 "Dear Colleague" letter issued by the feminists in the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights. It's not a law (Congress would never pass it), and it's not even a regulation required to be published in the Federal Register -- it's just a peremptory order to scare colleges into compliance by pretending it's an implementation of the law called Title IX.
This letter orders colleges to use a "preponderance of the evidence" standard of proof in sexual harassment and sexual assault cases, replacing the traditionally accepted "clear and convincing" standard of proof. The new rule means that the feminist academics sitting in judgment on male college students need to be only 50.01 percent confident a woman is telling the truth (i.e., that the woman must be believed whether or not she has any credible evidence).
The way the Duke lacrosse players' reputations and college education were destroyed is typical of feminist control of university attitudes. The prosecutor who falsely accused the men was disbarred, but there were no sanctions against the professors and college administrators who rushed to public judgment against the guys.
The definition of domestic violence and the standard of proof are so important because about one-fourth of divorces involve allegations of domestic violence. Judges are required to consider allegations of domestic violence in awarding child custody, even if no evidence of abuse is ever presented.
VAWA should encourage counseling when appropriate and voluntary, as well as programs to help couples terminate use of illegal drugs. When the abuse is only minor, divorce and/or prosecution should not be routine or the first choice of dealing with domestic conflict. Minor partner discord should not be overcriminalized.
VAWA should be subject to rigorous auditing procedures in order to curb waste and fraud and to establish accountability.
While there at it, how about re-writing “family law” which denise hard working fathers often times the inability to see their kids and pay more than half their pay to the wench that left them.
“VAWA should be subject to rigorous auditing procedures in order to curb waste and fraud and to establish accountability.”
Actually it is yet another area of law that should be left to the states. An important area of law that does need attention, but not as yet another federal leviathan which is overpriced, underperforming and politicized.
WHAT about a moslums against women act?
Revision? WTH? Why have such a monstrosity at all, much less at a billion a year? Why not just let it die?
Assault and such are state matters. It's un-Constitutional. The fact that every provision of this unnatural Act is evil, stupid, useless, ill-intentioned, and insane down to the last comma and letter-space is just a bonus.
Perhaps a new name:
Violence Against Gynocologically Indentified Non-males And Sort-of-males.
Just sayin’....
Prior to my retirement, the county jails were usually full and we couldn’t book real criminals. They were full of guys arrested for DV with mandatory booking. Prosecutors and cops were trained that males were the primary and main aggressors, and were treated accordingly.
If you got into an argument with your room mate and threw your glass on your floor and broke it you could be arrested for DV malicious mischief and booked. Notice I said room mate. The radio dispatch frequently put out calls of “verbal DVs”. Nothing physical, no crashing and banging or screaming, just loud argument or yelling. The DV laws covered anyone who had EVER lived with you. If you were my roomie 35 years ago and I ran into you in a bar and ended up punching your lights out I would go to jail for DV assault. If you had a restraining order issued against me my second amendment rights suddenly evaporated.
The whole DV issue has been turned into a judicial travesty, LE quagmire and citizen nightmare.
Speaking in a normal conversational voice can be called yelling if she disagrees with whatever he says.
LOL! Yup. Heard that one more than once.
jesabels destroy individuals and society.
WHAT about a moslums against women act?
No kidding! And what about a mothers-against-preborn- women act?
Someone asked me a question once which especially resonates as we feminize our military.
“If women are equal, then why isn’t it called a fist fight?”
“Revision? WTH? Why have such a monstrosity at all, much less at a billion a year? Why not just let it die?”
You are right.
Exact same premise as “hate crime” legislation.
Just another stupid law that creates a hierarchy of victimhood.
In a rational system, assault and battery charges would suffice in all such cases.
Of course the lines of what defines a woman are getting blurry. Which partner gets the special treatment in a gay marriage?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.