Violence Against Women Act passes!
| December 19th, 2005Good news - VAWA (the Violence Against Women Act) has passed reauthorization in both the Senate and the House, with a 20% increase in funding. It will not have to be reauthorized again until 2010.
VAWA, among other things, funds grants to shelters and other programs assisting victims of domestic violence. It also funds some high-quality federal research on subjects like rape, domestic violence, and stalking, which although not the most important thing VAWA does, is one reason I’m such a big fan of it.
This Mother Jones article will give interested readers a sense of the stuff VAWA funds. If you’re really interested, you can also read over the testimony given at the US Senate Committee Meeting on VAWA.
Another interesting change: Men’s Right’s Advocates succeeded in getting some new language put into VAWA:
I’m glad that provision has been added; I’m not convinced that VAWA was being generally applied in a way that excluded men (despite the unfortunate title, most of VAWA is written in scrupulously gender-neutral language), but having nondiscrimination explicitly stated in the legislation is still a good thing.
On the other hand, it worries me that some of the MRAs who are happy over this new language see it as the first step towards eliminating VAWA entirely. Here’s an exchange from a men’s rights forum:
DR. EVIL: Of course we would all like to see it disappear. You can’t stop a runaway freight train by snapping your fingers. We needed this to start the process of slowing it down. This is an important first step. There is more planned. We are on our way.
So much for the claim that MRAs aren’t seeking to defund shelters for women. (To be fair, perhaps the MRAs quoted above - despite Dr. Evil’s statement - don’t speak for all MRAs).
UPDATE: Dr. Evil has implied that he wants to eliminate VAWA but somehow replace the funding VAWA provides to shelters. So he’s anti-VAWA, but pro-funding-shelters. My apologies to Dr. Evil for my misunderstanding.
December 19th, 2005 at 6:48 pm
Actually, I think the FR’s are quite pro-violence, disgustingly so.
For reasons I don’t quite understand, I get email from some Canadian FR extremists. Those of you with a long memory may recall a man named Mark Lepine who murdered several women in Montreal out of some bizarre hatred of “feminists.” It was over a decade ago now. Feminists in Canada have turned the aniversary into a commemoration for all victims of violence against women.
The FR guys–I am not making this up–want to set up the anniversary as a day to commemorate Mark Lepine. As in Mark Lepine day. Great. Just what we need. A holiday dedicated to a mass killer. A guy named David Millar is on record as in favor of it.
This comment was written by silverside.Report this comment to the moderators
December 19th, 2005 at 7:39 pm
Re: Mark Lepine Day:
That’s just . . . oh gods, I don’t even have anything clever to say. It makes me wish I was Canadian just so I could vote against any commemoration of that psychopath.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
December 19th, 2005 at 9:08 pm
What’s an FR?
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
December 19th, 2005 at 9:15 pm
RonF
Father’s Rights (Activist) or group, IIRC.
This comment was written by Mendy.Report this comment to the moderators
December 19th, 2005 at 9:42 pm
Those MRA men are creepy creeps. It’s disgusting how they gloat about potential harm to an act that is meant to keep people from harm, as if somehow this is a good thing - ‘oh goody, soon I can start smacking around my woman again without any criminal recompense’. What assholes.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 2:20 am
doll for having such strange proportions, etc. is part of the motivation for this ritualistic Barbie destruction. That said, memory is a funny thing and maybe one remembers having those feelings because you did after the fact, but didn’t at the time. In unrelated but excellent news, the Violence Against Women Act got renewed until 2010. And they increased the funding by 20%! Mother Jones has the details on all the various useful things that VAWA does. There were a couple of non-important wording changes to throw the “WHAT ABOUT MEN?!” crowd a bone, which I can’t care about anymore
This comment was written by Pandagon.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 2:53 am
Silverside,
Quotes or links on that statement please?
By the way, David Miller is the Mayor of Toronto. It’s a village in Canada. They are probably going to erect a statue of Marc Lepine next to the Stalin Fountain in Hitler Memorial Square.
I heard the US Congress is voting on whether to pass Jeffrey Dahlmer Day next month.
Perhaps you can keep us informed?
This comment was written by David Miller.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 6:05 am
Why would you want to vote on an email sent by some nutter to silverside?
It’s not as though anyone serious is campaigning for this.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 6:19 am
It’s a village in Canada.
Yeah, a “village” of 4.5 million people. I think most of us would call that a “city”?
Canada never gets any respect. *grump*
This comment was written by Jakobpunkt.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 6:50 am
What gave you that impression? I don’t see the word ‘email’ anywhere in her original comment. She said:
Now, granted, “Mark Lepine Day” seems like an extraordinarily unlikely thing to pass, but considering how our very own president has used the anniversary of Roe V. Wade to mark “Sanctity of Life Day”, the anniversary of the death of Matthew Shepard to mark “Sanctity of Marraige Day” (or whatever that shit was called), and some MLK-related day to campaign against Affirmitive Action . . . well . . . let’s just say that I’ve nearned never to underestimate the depths some people will sink to.
—-Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 8:47 am
What gave you that impression? I don’t see the word ‘email’ anywhere in her original comment.
In the first paragraph, silverside stated:
For reasons I don’t quite understand, I get email from some Canadian FR extremists.
As the only intervening sentences between this and the statement
The FR guys”“I am not making this up”“want to set up the anniversary as a day to commemorate Mark Lepine. As in Mark Lepine day.
were an explanation of who Mark Lepine was, presumably the FR’s who sent her an email are the ones who wanted to commemorate the day.
This comment was written by Glaivester.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 9:22 am
the Senate and the House, with a 20% increase in funding. It will not have to be reauthorized again until 2010. VAWA, among other things, funds grants to shelters and other programs assisting victims of domestic violence. It also funds some […]Continue reading at Alas, a blog … posted 7:13 pm at Alas, a blog
This comment was written by feminist blogs.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 9:43 am
Ahh, you’re right. I missed that. Many apologies.
In any case, being south of the border, I’m not really familiar with how crazy, exactly, Canadian politics is. I’ll take the word of any Canadians around if they say that this isn’t likely to be taken seriously by anyone.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 9:56 am
I think all feminists should campaign to have the day changed from “Marc Lepine Day” to the “National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women”.
This comment was written by David Miller.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 10:38 am
I really don’t think the victims of these crimes mind the government’s intrusion all that much.
Or is he suggesting that if I were to show up and beat him senseless, that should be “left to the parties involved?” Or would I have to go out with him first for that to count?
I’ll just bet that the only reason they’re complaining about this “intrusion” is that domestic violence is overwhelmingly male-on-female. If it were to consist mostly of women beating up, stalking, killing, etc. men, they’d be bending over backwards in suport of an act like this.
Re: M— L—– Day: Why the fuck is everybody saying his name?! He deserves to be forgotten; let our memories be devoted to the women he murdered.
This comment was written by Kyra.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 10:46 am
This seems like an odd objection. I’m puzzled. I suspect he’ll be forgotten as most mass murderers are, with time and distance and more horrible and immediate crimes blotting out his memory.
It doesn’t seem disrespectful to women say his name any more than it would be disrespectful to Jewish people to use Adolf Hitler’s name in a discussion of how horrible he was. I may just be missing something, though. Please clarify.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 11:03 am
David Miller, calm down. It ain’t you. It’s David Millar.
Here’s the text of the email. It’s a tad incoherent, but I guess sociopaths can be that way. If you want additional confirmation, I suppose I could provide Millar’s email address. Might be interesting to see if he owns up to this racist, violent garbage. I just hope this guy isn’t clever enought to track me down. I think he’s truly dangerous.
———————————————————————————————
Well, …What was that Shawn Colvin song from 10 years or so ago, “Sunny Came Home” (with a vengeance)?
I suppose it is a bit of the prodigal son returns- to the man hating femmunists that created him? Always struck me odd that the femmunists were in fact actually ‘honoring their own handiwork” so to speak, in organizing marches on Dec 6th to remember the ’something something’ of the ’so-and-so’.
Speaking of December, what do you call a guy who’s half black and half Japanese?
Well, I can’t think what to call him either, but there’s got to be a name for a guy who, EVERY year, on December the 7th, - a date which will live in infamy - suddenly and deliberately attacks Pearl Bailey.
If you want to make it an official Mark Lepine day, it will be necessary to start petitioning Parliament - there is an official procedure that must be followed if you’re serious about this..
Or is this just an informal vote? Where and when is the poll? I’m in! -dwm-
Sender wrote:
This comment was written by silverside.Vote in favour of making December 6 a national holiday in memory of Mark Lepine.
Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 11:48 am
Don’t post the email address. It’s trivial to send email in anyone’s name, so it’s more than likely not really from that person.
I don’t know whether you are female, but if so, then you might reasonably take the “Mark Lepine” reference as a threat, and want to involve the law.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 11:54 am
Even US politics isn’t so crazy as to have people campaigning on a platform supporting the random killing of women.
I think you have more to worry from some nutter using that day to commit a similar atrocity, than from it ever being officially celebrated.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 11:58 am
Laugh! You owe me one slightly-less-soaked-with-iced-chai keyboard.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 12:07 pm
Silverside,
Thank you for providing the info. It is obvious that this is only the rantings of some idiots without common sense or decency. Similar to the women who shouted out “Lorena Bobbit for Surgeon General” to a men’s rally at Harvard University. Certainly comments like that are not welcome within the feminist movement are they? Hardly a legal or political movement. Does it show the extent of human ignorance and callousness? Absolutely.
Just to clarify things, Marc Lepine murdered 14 women at L’Ecole Polytecnique on Dec 6, 1989. In memorial of this awful event, Dec 6th is the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. There are memorial services held at both the school where the murders happened as well as at universities across the country, as well as remembrance shown by the Governments of Canada.
The arguments here in Canada are that this event is used as an example of how all men are just one step away from becoming a Marc Lepine, and thus this incident is used every year on Dec 6th to try and pass further violence legislation. One of the most vocal arguments against this is that Marc Lepine was a mentally ill, deranged mass murderer and hardly representative of men’s propensity for violence against women - so why is it always being used an example. Every year on Dec 6th, the insults fly between the two groups and this is probably how you came to be aware of it, and why people make bad jokes about it.
The Dec 6th memorials used to be quite a hotbed of controversy because for the first few years, it was female only - it was made quite well known that men were not welcome and were not allowed to attend - and this did send out quite a message to men in general. (Men do attend now, by the way.)
Thank you for clarifying that this whole idea of a Marc Lepine Day is just the rantings of some dipshit who shouldn’t be given the time of day, nor used to portray my country as a 3rd world mysoginist joke.
This comment was written by David Miller.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 12:37 pm
It’s rich to complain about that. The reason it has that title is feminists trumpetting of the VAW meme.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 12:52 pm
Most of the opposition to even a gender-neutral VAWA is not out of misogyny, but because it is an unconstitutional expansion of the powers of the federal government targeted at purely local crimes that state and local governments should be dealing with, not the federal government.
This comment was written by Andrew.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 1:14 pm
Gosh, this terrible practice of naming legislation after the problem it’s intended to address has got to stop…
This comment was written by Medium Dave.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 1:51 pm
In so far as it has been written in gender-neutral language, it would appear to be an intended to address certain types of violence against both sexes.
If you are of the view that violence against men should be ignored, (or ignored in this legislation) then please say so, for the record.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 2:28 pm
I advocate setting fire to straw men whenever possible…
This comment was written by Medium Dave.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 2:40 pm
unwanted pregnancies are popping up in the first place. Or perhaps it’s a sign that abortion providers are becoming increasingly hard to get in most of the country. This particular piece just left a bad taste in my mouth. Plus: VIOLENCE! SEX!Violence Against Women Act passes Via someone… can’t remember who, but I think it was Alas: On porn and cheap sex toys Behold! The Happy Kitty, a couple-weeks-old piece on Wired.com Posted in Sexual Health, Family • No Comments
This comment was written by blackfeminism.org.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 2:46 pm
I assume nothing you have not already stated. I merely ask a reasonable question given what you have stated. I note that you have not answered it.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 3:37 pm
So you’re saying that because I’m a feminist, I’m not allowed to criticize anything done by feminists? Or that I am allowed to criticize, but when I do my criticism should be dismissed as “rich,” whatever that means?
By the way, I think feminists are quite right to “trumpet” the “meme” (prejudicial language, much?) that violence against women is a serious social problem. I just think the legislation should have been in purely gender-neutral language.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 8:46 pm
Ampersand:
Is there any chance we could dispense with the “so you’re saying [FOO]?” formula, when [FOO] is manifestly not what I am saying?
You are, of course, perfectly entitled to criticise feminism, and I would applaud your so doing, however in this case it appears that far from criticising something “done by feminists”, you are criticising something “done by” Congress. As the following paragraph indicates, you do not criticise the thing “done by feminists” which resulted in the thing “done by” Congress. On the contrary, you applaud it.
“Rich”=”amusing” as I’m sure you already know.
They’re loaded words, certainly, but hardly prejudicial, because the judgement in question - that it has resulted in a piece of legislation which is not as gender-neutral as we both would want - preceeded their use.
They’re also the only words I can think of which conveyed what I meant, which is that it is an idea which has spread virally through the feminist movement and from the feminist movement into the mainstream as a result of the former’s loudly proclaiming it. “Virally” is another loaded word, but again I can’t think of an alternative.
I don’t agree that “violence against women” is a meaningful category. In so far as every act of violence (and a few things which are not violence) in which the victim is female falls under the rubric, it is an arbitrary one. It create the impression that, for example, domestic violence against women in the USA is like for example, prison prison violence against women in America and FGM as in Africa, and not like domestic violence against men in the USA. In reality, domestic violence against women is similar to domestic violence against men in the US and different from prison violence and genital mutilation.
Domestic violence is a meaningful category, as is prison violence. but the “violence against women” meme (idea, concept, whatever) has been used by feminists and others to dismiss, and to promote the dismissal from consideration of these forms of violence when they are perpetrated against men, and to prioritise the forms of violence which predominantly affect women (such as DV) over those which predominantly affect men (such as prison violence).
As an example of dismissal, I’ve already pointed out that the consern shown by Amnesty International towards female prisoners is not matched by a similar concern for males. And there’s no good reason for this. It doesn’t even benefit women, since for Amnesty to adopt a gender-neutral approach would in no way dilute the concern toward female prisoners. This is not a zero sum game.
Similarly all of the benefits to women of the VAWA would have been achieved if feminists had campained for a gender-neutral Domestic Violence Act. That VAWA has always been largely gender-neutral (and is more so now) is despite the efforts of feminists, not because of them. The residual gender bias that remains in the title may still have an effect, though: people and organisations working against DV against men may be reluctant to use the act, or may not be aware that they can. If so, then this is likely to impact upon the statistics and be used by feminists to claim that DV against men is less of a problem than it really is.
A genuine equality movement would have campaigned for a gender-neutral act, but feminism isn’t a genuine equality movement. It is a women-first movement.
As examples of prioritisation, note that Human Rights Watch did two surveys of prison rape against women before they did a gender-neutral one. Also Congress passed VAWA (mostly gender-neutral, but predominantly benefitting women) five years before they addressed prison rape with PREA (completely gender-neutral, but predomonantly benefitting men).
I don’t want to play the “which is worse” game. They’re both serious social problems, and both should have been addressed far earlier than they were. Nevertheless, there is no justification for prioritising violence against women over violence against men, and the mere fact that this happens refutes the ‘Patriarchy’ theory of feminism. There can be no more patriarchal body than Congress, yet it consistently puts women’s interests ahead of men’s.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 11:28 pm
And there’s no other reason that Congress might be less likely to sympathize with victims of prison rape other than that they’re male. Certainly not because they’re criminals?
Prison rape is a human rights violation that should be ended, but saying that Congress puts women’s interests first because they passed a bill to stop violence against all women before passing a bill to stop violence against male prisoners is, well, rich.
This comment was written by the15th.Report this comment to the moderators
December 20th, 2005 at 11:45 pm
Actually, it was utterly bewildering to me what you were saying; things were not as manifest as you assume.
Your belief that I was meaning to criticize Congress-but-not-feminists is a mistake. When I said the title of VAWA is unfortunate, I was consciously saying that the feminists who (I assume) thought of the title made an error. Criticizing the title of VAWA is so self-evidently criticizing something feminists did, that the alternate meaning you read into it didn’t even occur to me.
I think you have to remember the recent historical context - in which the vast, vast majority of crime-fighting resources went to fighting stranger-crimes, in which the typical victim is male, and there was a long tradition of giving most intimate violence, acquaintence rape, stalking, etc, in which the typical victim is female, a pass. Twenty years ago, spousal rape wasn’t even a crime in much (or most?) of the USA, and date rape was just good “boys will be handsy” fun.
In that context, I think it’s a legitimate feminist point that the kinds of violent crime that seemed to be getting brushed under the carpet, were types of crime that seemed to happen mostly to women. The point isn’t that such things never happen to men; it’s that they mostly happen to women, and they were being ignored.
However, what seems to me to be an acceptable thing to use to make a point in rhetoric, isn’t good law. So I don’t think it’s wrong to worry about “violence against women,” but I think the law should remain gender-neutral in its language.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 21st, 2005 at 12:03 am
Realistically, I think Congress passed VAWA before addressing prison rape because there’s a larger feminist lobby than there is a prisoners’ rights lobby. It’s not like VAWA just happened out of the blue; VAWA represents many years of hard work by feminist activists and theorists at many levels.
It’s terrible that prisoners are so screwed over in this country, but I don’t think the comparison really tells us anything beyond “group a has a bigger lobby than group b.”
Although I think it’s also the case that there’s a horrible prejudice against prisoners’ rights in the USA - one that goes far beyond reason.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 21st, 2005 at 12:11 am
Although I think it’s also the case that there’s a horrible prejudice against prisoners’ rights in the USA - one that goes far beyond reason.
One contributing factor to the attitude is a perception that “hard time” is both (a) more efficient in terms of delivering punishment and (b) more likely to knock sense into someone in the hopes they’ll stop making bad choices. How big are those effects, if they exist? I dunno.
Whatever you think of that point of view, people who hold it read news stories discussing at least some hard conditions and think “eh”. That tends to dilute any public outrage.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
December 21st, 2005 at 12:14 am
First of all, clearly Amnesty doesn’t have an infinite budget for studies of prison conditions. So although on the whole it’s not a zero-sum game, when Amnesty is deciding what to do with its annual research budget, that is a zero-sum problem.
Second of all, Amnesty didn’t do their studies in a void. Amnesty was - as I understand it - working in a context in which most of the social science literature on prison rape (as meager as it was, and is) concentrated on male prisoners. So that would have, in my view, been a reasonable reason to focus on female prisoners.
Do you have any evidence to support this at all? My impression is that the legislation - gender neutral language and all - was mostly developed by feminists. Certainly, the large movement for gender-neutral laws - including, for instance, the reforms of how rape is defined over the last couple of decades - was largely driven by feminists.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 21st, 2005 at 12:27 am
You misunderstand feminist theory. The theory does not claim that feminist activism is unable to change what patriarchal institutions, such as Congress, do. It is primariy because of feminist activism that VAWA happened.
And I agree with the15’s critique, as well: There are obvious other explanations for passing VAWA before anti-prison-rape legislation than anti-male bias in Congress. Your comparison, “mostly-male prisoners” and “mostly-female non-criminals,” is apples and oranges.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 21st, 2005 at 12:30 am
I don’t either, but even if the effects were huge, they couldn’t justify brushing priosn rape under the rug, of course. Being raped is obviously cruel (although, sadly, not that unusual) punishment.
(I’m not saying you’d diagree with me there, Robert.)
In general, “make it hard on ‘em” can lead to bad effects - not just rape, but also more riots, more prisoner death, etc.. For instance, politicians frequently insist that prisons shouldn’t have carpeting, because that would be too cushy. But iirc my criminology class from years ago correctly, carpeting does a lot to reduce echos and noise, which in turn makes riots and violence less likely.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 21st, 2005 at 9:22 am
The Violence Against Women Act Has Been Reauthorized! Some great news this morning fromAlas A Blog and Pandagon: VAWA has been reauthorized., with a 20% increase in funding. VAWA threw a bone to men’s rights activists by adding the following language to the Act:
This comment was written by The Countess.Report this comment to the moderators
December 21st, 2005 at 10:57 am
Daran, what you’re glossing over is that men frequently commit violence against women because the victims are women. The perpetrators are not randomly swinging their fist in a crowd and seeing whom it happens to hit. Yes, domestic violence is committed by women against women, by men against men, by women against men, and by transpeople against people of other genders. But, violence by men against women frequently intrinsically has to do with the ideas promulgated in our society about women’s worth.
No, I don’t have evidence to back this up. Others probably do.
This comment was written by Matan.Report this comment to the moderators
December 21st, 2005 at 1:17 pm
Some great news this morning fromAlas A Blog
This comment was written by The Countess' Journal.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 2:11 am
That’s like looking at a situation where two cash registers are consistently coming up with money missing, but one is missing far more money consistently and trackably, and saying that it makes no sense to make that one the priority. Of course both are a problem, and both should be addressed, like you said earlier, it isn’t zero-sum. The problem of violence against women can absolutely be addressed aggressively and with focus without dismissing violence that occurs to men. Are you being deliberately obtuse about this, or do you feel that the sort of violence VAWA addresses is more common or as common against men?
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 12:41 pm
Of course, women are raped in prison, too. So men who don’t want “DV” to have a default setting of “male-on-female” violence should bear in mind that it’s innacurate to consider “male-on-male” forced sex the default setting for the term “prison rape.” Particularly as there are more incarcerated women now than in earlier eras.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 1:21 pm
Kim,
By the rationale you have presented, does it not also make sense to concentrate on eradicating violence against women in the lower 48 States first, and THEN tackle the problem of violence against women in Alaska?
What I don’t understand about the argument is: If women committing violence against men is such an insignifacant problem because only 2% of women are guilty of it, then why would any woman object to any laws or legal language about it. It would only affect 2% of women so 98% of women would never be affected by this at all.
If I’m never guilty of speeding, then I couldn’t care less if speeding tickets are $50 or $500 for it is of no significance to me. If I was always speeding, then I would care.
My government could charge a 100% surcharge tax on trips to the moon and regulate the heck out of these trips and I wouldn’t object.
This comment was written by David Miller.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 2:59 pm
In regard to the cash register example, if the management stated that cash register “A” was allowed an acceptable loss of $20/day while cash register “B” was allowed an acceptable loss of $100/day… and both cash registers come up $120/day short, then register “A” will always look like the thief who’s stealing $100 bucks and register “B” will always look like he’s only stealing $20 - at the end of the day though, when all variables are made equal between the two, the fact still remains that $120 is missing from each - thus the need for standardizing between the two, otherwise all tracking and “statistical evidence” is entirely useless.
The problem as I see it is not necessarily that one gender is more guilty than the other, rather that we are not holding each gender to the same bar of expected behaviour and therefore all the statistical evidence becomes entirely useless. Once this bar is created equally, then we can begin to measure who does more to who.
When we as society are watching TV/Movies and we see a man arguing with a woman and then he takes a swing at her - we as the audience automtically hate the man and think the woman should get out of there and go to the police to report him, for he is an abuser and has committed domestic violence.
The next evening we are watching TV/Movies and we see a man arguing with a woman and she picks up a vase and throws it him. We kind of smile at her high-spiritedness, the man makes a joking comment and disappears, then we go on to watch the movie without thinking badly of her and certainly not viewing her as an abuser (ever thought what would happen to that guys face if the vase had hit him?). We certainly don’t expect that the man has been assaulted and that he should leave her or go to the police and charge her.
That society does not openly question this disparity between our views of abuse goes to show that indeed violence against men is a serious problem in society - because its not even thought of as violence. All statistics of who abuses who more are irrelevant until all forms of abuse are viewed to the same standard, then we can do some real research to see who abuses who more.
If men driving 20mph over the limit are charged with reckless driving while women driving 20mph over the limit are charged with excessive use of gas, then it will be easy for society to attack men for being reckless drivers. When both genders driving 20mph over the limit are charged with speeding, then we can do some real research on which gender speeds more. (As if it matters - they both should stop speeding!)
I don’t understand why anyone would object to standardizing the bar between the genders.
This comment was written by David Miller.Report this comment to the moderators
December 22nd, 2005 at 3:26 pm
I’m not aware of any change in the relative prison populations sufficient to change the fact that most prison rape victims are men.
Nor is anyone that I can see asking for male-on-male to be considered the default. I am asking for an inclusive approach which embraces every victim.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2005 at 5:09 am
Alas, a blog: Violence Against Women Act passes!
This comment was written by Sour Duck's link blog.Report this comment to the moderators
January 9th, 2006 at 9:28 pm
[…] Ah, but now, thanks to H.R.3402, the (otherwise estimable and indeed highly necessary) Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005, we get to take up our red pens and amend the above. Turn with me to Sec. 113 for the changes: […]
This comment was written by Long story; short pier. » Blog Archive » Yanking cranks..Report this comment to the moderators
January 13th, 2006 at 11:39 am
You just have to love Congress and their inability to state the truth.
Violence Against Women Act.
Sounds better than Anti-Violence Bill.
Remember, requirews the following:
In this part, and in any other Act of Congress, unless the context unequivocally requires otherwise, a provision authorizing or requiring the Department of Justice to make grants, or to carry out other activities, for assistance to victims of domestic violence, dating violence, stalking, sexual assault, or trafficking in persons, shall be construed to cover grants that provide assistance to female victims, male victims, or both.
My questions is as follows:
Even though the law may be implemented correctly (meaning men and women will be protected and treated equally), the law appears to be ‘aimed’ at women. Why? Shouldn’t the illegal acts be the issue rather than the gender of the victim?
Just curious.
This comment was written by Counsel.Report this comment to the moderators
January 13th, 2006 at 11:40 am
[…] The ALAS Blog states that […]
This comment was written by Pocosin.com » Blog Archive » Violence Against Women Act.Report this comment to the moderators
January 13th, 2006 at 12:34 pm
No. Not when gender is a mitigating factor in the illegal acts themselves. We can stop aiming laws at women when men stop aiming violence at women because they are women.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
January 13th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
The smart and provoactive Ampersand (Barry Deutsch) atAlas (a blog)spreads the word: Good news - VAWA (the Violence Against Women Act) has passed reauthorization in both the Senate and the House, with a 20% increase in funding. It will not have to be reauthorized again until 2010.
This comment was written by The New Charm School: Jennifer Warwick’s Blog for Gutsy Women.Report this comment to the moderators
January 13th, 2006 at 1:35 pm
I applaud the provisions of the Violence Against Women Act that actually go towards preventing violence against women; however, I cannot in good conscience support the bill as a whole, and I believe it constitutionally irresponsible to support the bill as a whole. Like many end of the year bills that go through Congress the Violence Against Women Act is vandalized by riders that would never be passed on their own.
This comment was written by Caz McChrystal.Under section 113 of the bill, entitled “Preventing Cybersquatting,” 47 U.S.C. 223(h)(1) is amended to greatly restrict our first amendment rights involving any anonymous speech over the Internet. In fact, any anonymous Internet posting that a court could construe as “annoy[ing]” may be punishable by up to two years in federal prison.
Again, while I strongly support legislation that promotes civil rights, I do not feel that the erosion of the Bill of Rights should be the price tag. By celebrating the quality provisions of the Violence Against Women Act, while disregarding its more deplorable aspects, you do a disservice to the same constitution that provides for the protections granted by the Act.
Report this comment to the moderators
January 13th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
As I wrote in an earlier post (I’m recycling freely from that post in this post, incidentally), it’s tempting to respond to VAWA by asking “so where’s the Violence Against Men Act?” Taken out of context, VAWA does seem pretty unfair. Why should the government focus on what happens to women?
But VAWA wasn’t written outside of context. In reality, crime is not sex-neutral. The majority of criminal violence against men is “stranger violence”; men are assaulted in bars, attacked by muggers, raped in prison. For women, in contrast, the majority of violence is “intimate violence”; women are beat up by husbands, raped by acquaintances.
Here’s where context comes into play. Our courts and our cops have been designed mainly to prevent stranger violence - which is to say, the kind of violence that happens mostly to men. You want to know where the Violence Against Men Act is? Virtually our entire criminal-justice system - at least, the bits dealing with violent crime - has been a Violence Against Men Act, for most of its history. Violence that happens primarily to women - intimate violence, date rape, and so on - has been ignored until recently.
VAWA isn’t adding bias to a sex-neutral system; it’s an attempt to correct a system which has for centuries been overwhelmingly biased towards the needs of men.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 2nd, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Last week, as many of you know, VAWA was reauthorized (with no time to spare). What many of you may not know, however, is that the International Marriage Broker Act [pdf file] has been attached to VAWA. Some of you may remember that I first wrote about this Act
This comment was written by Cool Beans.Report this comment to the moderators
June 7th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
you said: “it’s an attempt to correct a system which has for centuries been overwhelmingly biased towards the needs of men.” WRONG. The only needs that were supported were that of RICH men and women, not the great majority of poor men. Violence against Men has always been more acceptable, through workplace deaths, barroom brawls and war, etc. That’s why men are the minority! There were husband-beaters in the 1800’s. Check out president Lincoln. His wife beat him good. And stranger violence happened to women as well as men. WAVA does add bias! And you should check your history facts better.
This comment was written by Tom.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2007 at 9:41 am
There’s no conflict. It’s entirely possible for both wealth and gender to be paths to privilege, but if you don’t see that our world has been (and is) massively sexist, I think you’re being willfully blind.
I think it’s true that it’s generally been more acceptable for men to engage in deadly violence against men, but that’s not what’s in question here.
Once again, there’s no conflict.
The existence of a few cases in the contrary doesn’t change that, according to our best information, men physically abuse women in far greater numbers than women physically abuse men.
Especially in the 1800’s.
Yep. So?
Like I said, the existence of a few cases in the contrary doesn’t change the basic thesis, and nobody has claimed that stranger violence never affects women.
Sure, but it seems appropriate to me nonetheless. Specifically, check out Post #53 for more info.
Nuh-uh! You should!
Seriously, Tom. It’s not that I even disagree with (some of) the facts you bring up, it’s just that in context they seem sort of like non sequitirs.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2007 at 9:49 am
You said: “There’s no conflict. It’s entirely possible for both wealth and gender to be paths to privilege, but if you don’t see that our world has been (and is) massively sexist, I think you’re being willfully blind.”
This comment was written by Tom.The world is massively sexist. Mostly against men. Yeah, I know what everybody’s thinking: It still is men who sent men into war, into workplace deaths, to be kidnapped or incarcerated, Fine. Point taken. However, if the shoe were on the other foot, and it were women who were the ones who die in war battles,dying in workplace accidents, and dying younger, or being more represented in prison, the world would accuse men of not being chivalrous, and not doing enough to “protect” women from disaster. Society doesn’t tell women to protect men, to also be chivalrous. Men are more often the protectors of women, not the oppressors. Yes, this IS sexist, but at detriment to the average man. Men invented telephones, cars, planes, houses, governments, things that women refuse to give up, yet they can call men in general, oppressive. My advice to many of them is: get an 100% all-women country. I’m not stopping you. Live without your “oppressors”. Build your own items and houses from scratch. retrieve your own garbage, and maintain your own roads. Let me know how it works, O.K. You said: “I think it’s true that it’s generally been more acceptable for men to engage in deadly violence against men, but that’s not what’s in question here. Once again, there’s no conflict.”
To me, it is a huge conflict when the major mainstream news media, hollywood, public schools, scream the word “violence against women”, but not “violence against men” or even better, “violence against people”, “living things”, whatever. The schools and the media have this big megaphone in which to proclaim something backward, or progressive. In their words, male-dominated is out. A female dominated craft is in, it’s empowering, liberated! I don’t the institution of government is run well by either gender. I think people should go into farming instead. But I like to challenge politically-correct double-speak wherever it is.
Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Thats because the world has sexist beliefs about women. Evidently, our poor little female brains cant figure out ways to protect ourselves and we’re all delicate little flowers who must be protected.
Chivalry is sexist and rooted in the idea women are really children and should be treated as such.
Pray tell, who are these men protecting us from? Aliens?
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
You are totally correct. Chivalry is degrading to both genders, women as well as men. End chivalry today!
This comment was written by Mike.Report this comment to the moderators
June 10th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
Oooh pheeno, I know the answer! They’re protecting us from other men!
This comment was written by debbie.Uh oh! look like Tom’s fantasy world has collapsed around his ears.
Report this comment to the moderators
August 5th, 2008 at 9:01 am
I noted that: Shouldn’t the illegal acts be the issue rather than the gender of the victim?
A commenter replied: No. Not when gender is a mitigating factor in the illegal acts themselves. We can stop aiming laws at women when men stop aiming violence at women because they are women.
I don’t know whether the commenter is thinking this thorough… How is the gender of the person getting beaten a mitigating factor to the illegal act of committing the violence?
If a law stated all violence was illegal, why would the gender be relevant? I am suggesting equal treatment under the law–not unequal.
By your logic (We can stop aiming laws at women when men stop aiming violence at women because they are women), we would need seperate anti-violence laws for women, men, hermaphrodites (or do you lump them in with women or men?), different ethnic groups, etc.) rather than have one law against violence.
If we had to pass separate laws, whomever was not included in one of those laws would not be included (i.e., treated fairly). How do you justify such exclusion?
I argue that it is the act (violence, murder, etc.) and not the gender, ethnic group, etc. that should be relevant. Sure, you can agree, but your logic excludes equal treatment for some, and I can’t understand your reasoning for that exclusion…
BTW: I don’t include “race” in the description because I think there is one race, the human race.
This comment was written by Counsel.Report this comment to the moderators
August 5th, 2008 at 10:16 am
Holy thread-necromancy, Counsel!
Here’s the thing, man. Two points:
1) This whole debate kind of creeps me out in the way that the debate over whether or not white people ’should’ say the n-word creeps me out. Why would it bother someone so much, not being ’supposed’ to use a horrible racial slur? Why would it bother someone so much, the idea of women recieving xtra protection from violence? I mean, it neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg, you know? Since it does neither, I end up feeling like the people who are so upset about this (as-in-your-original-post-was-2.5-years-ago-upset) are just really bothered by the idea of a law protecting women. And that’s creepy.
2) If the ‘inequality’ still bothers you, think of it this way: two towns border each other and have a roughly equal population. One town has very little crime, its streets are safe at night, etc. The other town is suffering through a horrible crime wave, its citizens are scared to go out, chaos reigns supreme, etc.
It only makes sense that the second town should put more police on the streets. There just simply isn’t going to be a way to staff their respective police forces that is both perfectly ‘equal’ and actually effective. If you just give them both the exact same number of officers, funding, and training, one police force will end up overstaffed, and one will end up understaffed.
This is the same situation. Women face more violence. We’re addressing the issue more strongly because it requires it. It may be, as you said, that it’s ‘unfair’ to staff the two towns’ police forces differently (”After all, they have the same population! Why should one town have twice as many cops?”), but it’s also the only reasonable, rational, thing to do. The actual world is about more than just theory.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
August 5th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Myca:
I don’t mind extra police, and I would assume that the police would protect everyone equally — rather than just intervene if a woman was attack and not intervene if a man was attacked.
Whether it is reasonable or rational is up for debate. I am not saying anyone should be subject to violence.
My point was why do you offer more legal protection to one group of people–regardless if it is women, men, hermaphrodites, African-American, etc…
Whether women face more violence is irrelevant as to whom should be protected FROM violence.
Only including women in the law does not mean the law will be enforced. So, you may be talking about enforcement of the law. I do not mind appropriate enforcement of the law, my comment is directed to protecting everyone rather than a group we all want to protect–just not to the detriment to other groups who also need the protection. For example, groups that are targeted for violence include gay men. Excluding “men” means gay men don’t get the same protection against violence as women would receive…
The question I have to you is, “why not?” I am not saying women are subject to less violence or that they are subject to more violence than men. My comment is simply stating that if we all focus on “our” problems, we exclude solving THE problem–violence.
Perhaps this will help… You suggest we protect women because they are subject to “more” violence? Does your rationale suggest that we should protect women “less” if they are subject to “less” violence? I don’t think so… I think we both want to end violence–not just against women.
Or are you suggesting, somehow, that violence against those who are not women is somehow more acceptable?
This comment was written by Counsel.Report this comment to the moderators
August 5th, 2008 at 11:00 am
I felt sad that you had the following assumption:
I end up feeling like the people who are so upset about this (as-in-your-original-post-was-2.5-years-ago-upset) are just really bothered by the idea of a law protecting women. And that’s creepy.
I have to admit that your assumption about me being “bothered” or upset about protecting women is wrong–whether you admit it or not.
I am not suggesting we do NOT protect women. I am simply suggesting that the law offer the same protection to everyone…
This comment was written by Counsel.Report this comment to the moderators
August 5th, 2008 at 11:20 am
[…] most recent issue of this is found on this page at Alas a […]
This comment was written by Pocosin.com » Blog Archive » Why do we assume?.Report this comment to the moderators
August 5th, 2008 at 11:52 am
playing lawyer to Lucifer for a moment, it might make some people more equal before the law than others, which can foment resentment of the law and worsen social divisions and strife. whether this particular case of not-quite equality under the law actually does do those things might be debatable, though.
This comment was written by Nomen Nescio.Report this comment to the moderators
August 5th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Folks, please read the original post (or reread it to refresh your memory, if it’s been a few years). VAWA isn’t a perfect law, but most of it is written in scrupulously gender-neutral language. To describe it as if it protects women while doing nothing at all for any male crime victims is inaccurate.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
August 5th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
I think that you don’t understand analogies.
The law, in its infinite wisdom, prohibits the rich, as well as the poor, from sleeping beneath bridges. Right.
Great point, Ampersand. Counsel, what specific complaints do you have about the act? Which provisions (once again, specifically) do you believe are unfair and unwarranted?
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
August 5th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Ampersand:
I agree.
Law available here: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h3402enr.txt.pdf
My original post only discussed TITLE I (ENHANCING JUDICIAL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT TOOLS TO COMBAT VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN), TITLE VI ( HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES AND SAFETY FOR BATTERED WOMEN AND CHILDREN). and TITLE IX (SAFETY FOR INDIAN WOMEN).
I agree with your statement in general and only wish the legislature had done as well on those sections :)
The law is a good law, don’t get me wrong…
Myca:
I am an English major, but the courts interpret language specifically and do not always appreciate metaphors… I am sorry that I do not think your example worked. That it was a metaphor (the substitution of one idea or object with another, used to assist expression or understanding) or not is not relevant if it does not help with increasing the understanding… Sorry.
Your complaining about rich and poor not being treated equally is a problem with enforcement of the law not with how the law is written. Nobody has disagreed that enforcement is not always conducted equally. We all agree enforcement needs work, but I think the law should provide for equal treatment. If we start writing unequal treatment into the law, how are we improving the situation (i.e., ,making the situation better)?
If we have a problem with enforcement (which we do), let us work to improve enforcement.
I am not sure why you seem to think I think the law is bad. To simplify my comment, I stated that the law should apply to ALL rather than to the FEW or the ONE. If you agree with basic idea, we agree. If you don’t agree, I haven’t seen where you state why some people and/or groups deserve better treatment than everyone else. We really don’t need to argue over minutia…
Perhaps you want to make a group whole–that is the justification for making it easier for women and other “minorities” to get government business loans–a benefit I do not oppose.
Please understand all I am saying is that I (me) would prefer the law to prevent violence against all and to provide the same benefits to all–something it comes very close to doing.
This comment was written by Counsel.Report this comment to the moderators
August 5th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Is English your first language? I ask because we seem to be talking past each other here, especially if you think, “The law, in its infinite wisdom, prohibits the rich, as well as the poor, from sleeping beneath bridges,” has anything at all to do with enforcement.
I was making the point that writing a law so as to be scrupulously neutral can lead to some pretty serious discrimination when situations are unequal.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
August 5th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Myca:
It does when the application of the law by DAs, LE (law enforcment), and lawyers use the law to make the law apply differently to different people. Writing it so that it offers different protection to different people guarantees people will not be treated equally.
I wonder why you need to be critical? Yes, English is my first language. Does writing a law so as to be scrupulously neutral lead to some pretty serious discrimination when situation are unequal?
Sure.
Is that discrimination due to the law being written the way it is or is that outcome due to the enforcement given by District Attorney and/or the police (or other law enforcement units)?
If the law is written so that it applies to all, any discriminatory application may be due to improper enforcement or application.
Understand, making that law apply to all does not reduce any protection to women. Rather, making the law apply to all makes more people/groups receive the protection offered under the law. Again, whether the law is applied as it should be is an enforcement issue–this is why the EPA is sued for failure to meet goals/guidelines.
Follow this argument that a lawyer could make:
Most of the VOWA is written in a gender neutral tone. However, these sections (and the attorney will list the sections that are not gender-neutral) are not so written. Why would some sections be written gender-neutral and some not? Obviously, the legislature meant for some areas of the law to only apply to women and not to (whomever his client has abused).
A court may agree with that argument.
Again, my suggestion would not give women any less protection. Do you think women deserve more protection than other groups/people? I can accept that. However, my wanting to protect everyone from violence does not make me “wrong” in any sense of the word. :) I really don’t think we disagree unless you are saying that women deserve more protection from violence than other people (e.g., gay men, African Americans, Latin Americans, etc.). If we do not agree (if you think women should have more protection than others), I can accept that reasonable people can disagree.
This comment was written by Counsel.Report this comment to the moderators
August 5th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Serious question, actually. We seem to be talking past each other, and that sometimes happens with folks who aren’t very skilled with English. It’s not an attack, just a question.
Part of the reason I used the example I did is that a law against vagrancy (sleeping under bridges) will lead to a greater oppression of the poor in cases where it is enforced equally.
See, the rich don’t need to sleep under bridges, so if the law says, “arrest everyone sleeping under a bridge, regardless of their income,” 100% of the people arrested will be the very poor.
The problem here is clearly not unequal enforcement. It’s equal enforcement of a law that pretends that everyone’s situation is the same, when it’s clearly not.
Similarly here, the situation of women and men in the US in regards to violence is clearly not equal, and I think that it makes sense for our laws to recognize that.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
August 5th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Another example would be a law against marrying someone of the same sex.
That means nothing to me but means a very great deal to my gay friends.
Pretending that that law is neutral is extremely foolish, though it applies regardless of sexual orientation.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
August 5th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Myca:
I understand your example. I hope you understand that I do not think it applies here… Anyone arrested for violence would be guilty–I don’t care whether they are rich or not. I am protecting those who are subject to violence–not protecting those who commit violence (regardless of their class, ethnic group, social status, etc.).
Do you see it targeting a group you think will lead to unfair treatment? In other words, how would protecting everyone equally (rather than protecting women more) lead to unequal treatment under this law?
Your last example does NOT treat everyone fairly does it? If the law was written to allow everyone to get married, I would have no problem with the law-even if it allowed three people to be in a marriage (understand that some cultures differ from ours).
Why give an example of a law that treats people differently as your example? That is what I am arguing against… Marriage, in most laws, apply marriage only to a union between a man and a women does not apply to everyone equally does it?
I am not arguing that all laws are written equally, I was only saying that this law should have been gender-neutral everywhere rather than in most places…
Laws passed against theft apply only to those who commit theft. Do we get rid of all these laws just because they apply to less financially well off individuals, no. Should some laws be repealed (like the one you give about sleeping under bridges)? Certainly–or at least amended :)
This comment was written by Counsel.Report this comment to the moderators
August 5th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
That is not true.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
August 5th, 2008 at 6:02 pm