|
Kill Discriminatory Domestic Violence Act
The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) www.mediaradar.org/vawa_info/JEN05634_LC.PDF
will expire this September if it is not
re-authorized by Congress. Largely viewed as an
anti-domestic violence (DV) measure, VAWA has
become a flash point for the men's rights advocates
(MRAs) who see it instead as the living symbol of
anti-male bias in law.
Although a significant number of domestic
violence (DV) victims are male, VAWA defines
victims as female. As one result, tax-funded DV
shelters and services assist women and routinely
turn away men, often including older male
children.
Estimates vary on the prevalence of male
victims. Professor Martin Fiebert of California
State University at Long Beach www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
offfers a bibliography that "summarizes 170
scholarly investigations, 134 empirical studies and
36 reviews". It indicates that men and women are
victimized at much the same rate. A lower-bound
figure is provided by a recent BOJ study: men
constituted 27% of the victims of family violence
between 1998 and 2002.
Accordingly, MRAs not only accuse the Act of not
merely being unconstitutional for excluding men but
also of dismissing the existence of one-quarter to
one-half of DV victims.
The criticism should go deeper. In many ways,
VAWA typifies the legislative approach to social
problems, which arose over past few decades and
peaked during the Clinton years.
The legislative approach follows a pattern:
public furor stirs over a social problem; Congress
is pressured to "do something"; remedial
bureaucracy arises, often with scant planning; the
problem remains; more money and bureaucracy is
demanded; those who object are called hostile to
"victims".
VAWA arose largely from the concern stirred by
feminists in the '80s. They quite properly focused
on DV as a neglected and misunderstood social
problem. But their analysis went to extremes and
seemed tailor-made to create public furor.
As an example, consider a widely-circulated
claim: "a woman is beaten every 15 seconds." The
statistic is sometimes attributed to www.sedgwickcounty.org/da/dv_facts.html
the FBI, other times to a www.pinn.net/~sunshine/now-news/dv2.html
1983 Bureau of Justice Statistics report. But
neither the www.fbi.gov/
FBI nor the www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/
BOJ sites seems to include that statement or a
similar one.
MRAs www.responsibleopposing.com/facts/15sec.html
contend that the elusive statistic derives from the
book www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385142595/002-0373237-7762417?v=glance
"Behind Closed Doors: Violence in the American
Family" (1980) by Murray Straus, Richard J. Gelles,
and Suzanne K. Steinmetz. The book was based on the
first www.socio.com/srch/summary/afda/fam31.htm
National Family Violence Survey (1975), from which
the FBI and other federal agencies drew.
The survey does support the claim that a woman
is battered every 15 seconds but also indicates
that a man is battered during the same time frame.
Omitting male victims, however, creates the
impression of a national epidemic was uniquely
victimizes women who require unique protection.
In response to public outcry, Congress was
pressured to "do something." It passed VAWA 1994.
$1.6 billion created a bureaucracy of researchers,
advocates, experts, and victim assistants, which
some collectively call "the DV Industry".
Re-authorized in 2000, VAWA's funding rose to
www.acadv.org/VAWAbillsummary.html
$3.33 billion to be expended over 5 years. Now,
VAWA 2005 seeks thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc109/h2876_ih.xml
more money.
Voices like the National Organization for Women
www.now.org/issues/violence/051305vawa-youth.html
insist that 'the problem' remains. To argue for the
"growing problem of gender-based violence",
however, NOW reaches beyond traditionally-defined
violence against women and seeks to protect high
school girls from abusive dating experiences. NOW
states, "Nearly one in three high-school-age women
experience some type of abuse-whether physical,
sexual or psychological-in their dating
relationships."
Without expanding the definition in such a
manner, it would difficult to argue for more
funding. seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002332042_violence13.html
Data indicates that traditionally-defined violence
against women has declined sharply. The rate of
family violence has reportedly "fell from about 5.4
victims per 1,000 to 2.1 victims per 1,000 people
12 and older", according to BOJ statistics.
Happily, VAWA 2005 faces much more opposition
than its earlier incarnations. One reason is that
www.thepriceofliberty.org/05/06/13/guest_trudy.htm
MRAs have been presenting counter-data and
arguments for over ten years. Advocates of VAWA
2005 have responded with www.policyalmanac.org/elists/viewtopic.php?t=193
pre-emptive spaces.msn.com/members/lastliberal/Blog/cns!1pkAlpUeLQX-nmj6w5lyseSQ!1620.entry
accusations that paint opponents as anti-victim:
for example, "If Congress does not act quickly to
reauthorize the legislation, they are putting
women's and children's lives at risk."
But most of the anti-VAWA arguments are not
anti-victim. Many are anti-bureaucracy and could
apply to any of the so-called 'industries' created
by the legislative approach to social problems.
(The Child Protective Services is another
example,)
Some anti-bureaucracy objections focus on the
billions of dollars transferred into programs,
often with little oversight or accountability
attached.
Other objections point to those dollars being
used for political purposes rather than clear and
immediate assistance to victims. The misuse of tax
dollars is most often alleged on the grassroots
level, where MRAs often face VAWA-funded opposition
to political measures, especially on father's
rights issues.
One incident in New Hampshire illustrates the
point. Earlier this year, www.1590.com/Stories/0,1413,222~23677~2840939,00.html
HB 529 -- The Presumption of Shared Parental Rights
and Responsibilities Act -- was defeated by
vehement opposition from the NH Coalition Against
Domestic and Sexual Violence. The Coalition both
www.nhcustody.org/NHCADSV,%20opposes%20HB%20529%20shared%20parenting,%203-22-05.pdf
wrote to and spoke before the legislature.
Accordingly, father's rights advocates in NH are
seeking language in VAWA 2005 to prohibit any
VAWA-fund agency from "legislative lobbying,
advertising, or otherwise supporting the
endorsement of, or opposition to, any state
proposed legislation" which is not explicitly
related to the prevention of DV.
I think they should seek to kill the Act
entirely. I believe VAWA is not only
ideological-inspired and discriminatory, it is also
an example of why bureaucracy-driven solutions to
human problems does not work.
I hope VAWA becomes the Titanic of the
legislative approach to social problems. I hope it
sinks spectacularly.
©2007, Wendy
McElroy
* * *
Wendy
McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com
and a research fellow for The Independent Institute
in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and editor of
many books and articles, including her latest book,
Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the
21st Century. She lives with her husband in
Canada. E-Mail.
Also, see her daily blog at www.zetetics.com/mac
Contact
Us |
Disclaimer
| Privacy
Statement
Menstuff®
Directory
Menstuff® is a registered trademark of Gordon
Clay
©1996-2023, Gordon Clay
|
