The necessity for, and the excesses of, VAWA and similar laws have been written about by many others. The subject of this post is far more limited. At the very least, VAWA needs to be renamed, and the gender references need to be neutral. There can't be any plausible dispute about that.
It is only fair when we talk about our armed forces that we refer to "the men and women" serving in the military, not just "the men." The proportion of males to females in the military is still heavily lopsided in favor of the former, and men continue to suffer nearly all military fatalities, but a failure to refer to "women" would be unfair to the many dedicated women who serve.
Use of gender inclusive language has become the norm in virtually every other aspect of life as well. As but one example, writers of texts routinely are given editorial guidelines to insure that their language is gender neutral, regardless of whether the particular subject matter is one that would more likely involve one gender than the other.
Even on this blog, we include "women" in our subtitle even though males have a near monopoly on victimization from wrongful sex claims. Why do we do this? Because some women also suffer--directly, and more commonly, indirectly--from false sex claims, and it is important to signal to them that their victimization is worthy of attention, too.
So isn't it time to rewrite VAWA as gender neutral? It is now clear that men, too, suffer from domestic violence in significant numbers. "A number men's and father advocacy groups often cite statistics and studies from the Department of Justice to the Centers for Disease Control to State Universities, that show women are the perpetrators of violence against men as often as men are the perpetrators of violence against women." See here.
Congressman Ted Poe, Texas Republican and longtime I-VAWA supporter, doesn't agree that men suffer from domestic violence in equal numbers, but says he would now support re-writing the legislation as gender neutral. Poe says that even though the current law is also applicable to male victims of domestic violence, he thinks it might be time for a name change. He also favors replacing references to "women" in the act with gender neutral language. “The Constitution uses ‘person.’ They thought of it long before we did, so 'person' is an appropriate term,” he noted. Id.
The fact is, "[n]othing in the act denies services, programs, funding or assistance to male victims of violence.” See here. So why is it necessary to make the language of VAWA gender inclusive? Because words matter. The very title, and the gender exclusive language, of the current VAWA serve as a de facto "MEN NOT WELCOME" sign that only reinforces eons of harmful, gender constricting cultural stereotypes--stereotypes that make it very difficult for men to acknowledge their victimization from domestic violence, much less to do anything about it.
And while we are insisting on the importance of gender inclusive language in VAWA, we need not bother reiterating what has become a near obsession in some quarters--insisting that men's victimization is equivalent to, or worse than, women's. This is done to counteract the blithe and inexcusable omission of male victims from the public discourse about domestic violence, but it's not necessary. It is enough to assert that, by any measure, men suffer from domestic violence in significant numbers, without trying to pin down a mathematically precise percentage, which is likely as impossible as pinning down a percentage of false rape claims. No one requires equivalency when it comes to any other aspect of life where gender inclusive language is now the norm, and the never-ending debate about gender "equivalency" in the domestic violence milieu creates an artificial hurdle to treating male victimization with the seriousness it deserves. It is enough to assert that too many women, and too many men, are victims of domestic violence.
Congressman Poe wants to see clarification about VAWA's aims, as well. He wants to see clarification in terms of how domestic violence is defined. "We’re talking about people getting hurt. We’re talking about people having to flee in the middle of the night for their safety and that this bill is addressing violence not name calling—not suggestive behavior--but the word violence," he said. "When we get to re-drafting the bill, it must be clear enough that we are talking about somebody getting hurt. Physical harm and serious bodily injury is a good definition of domestic violence. But I agree. I think that needs to be very clearly defined and not some abstract feeling or [someone] getting their feelings hurt."
Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/jul/21/picket-vawa-supporter-capitol-hill-looks-have-law-/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
12 comments:
My first idea is that the gender neutralization is not practical at all. Because of it is opposite to the nature of sexuality. Gender specifications are existing securely and we can promote them well because of nature supports them and protects them.
My second idea is that there is a terrible hypocrisy behind the gender neutralizing. If women need gender neutralizing, how they can imply that they are women? And how they can talk about special problems of women? Why women act as women when they are in trouble? Cant they neutralize their gender at that time? Why women want to define their female specific set of problems? After all "woman" is a gender specific term. This is only hypocrisy.
If VAWA is made gender neutral, what will it be called? VAPA (Violence Against Persons Act)?
Also, what about those who have suffered, and are still suffering while it is not gender neutral?
What about men and men's families who have suffered, and are still suffering from false accusations made by female "victims" whom the police and the syatem were required to believe?
Will the system look back and exonerate those who wer arrested and/or convicted all based on heresay when there was no forensic, physical or corroorating proof or evidence to even justify an arrest?
My apologies but this sexist and unconstitutional law/legislation has, and is still leaving, lots of ruined /destroyed lives in it's wake.
After all of these years they now want to make it gender neutral?
Another question; how gender neutral do they plan on making it?
It's too late to bring victims of murder back to life. There many, perhaps millions of us men who cannot be given back what has been taken from us.
Congress should have read VAWA and considered the two radical feminists who wrote it before passing it into law.
Renaming VAWA in gender-neutral language. Well, as they say, you can put lipstick on a pig, and it's still a pig.
Renaming VAWA would actually be harmful and counterproductive, as it would create a smokescreen of gender-neutrality to disguise the way that such laws are biased towards women. So long as such laws and policies favor women, it is better to openly acknowledge this.
If VAWA is to be renamed, how about calling it the White Knight Feeble Little Woman Protection Act? Or the Bill O'Reilly-Wendy Murphy Act? [snark]
Men are being harmed by domestic violence, and men should be encouraged to insist they receive the same resources women get because of it. What is so complicated about that?
The problem with making it gender neutral is that it would undermine the very purpose of the act, which had nothing to do with public safety, and everything to do with politics.
If it's purpose was to reduce violence, then it should simply be repealed. There isn't a shred of evidence that the VAWA has done anything to reduce violence, and there is even some evidence (especially in minority communities) that it has actually increased violence.
Even according to their own "2005 Factsheet" it increased domestic violence, "since VAWA 1994 there has been a 51% increase in reporting of domestic violence, and the National Domestic Violence Hotline has seen calls increase an average of 18% every year."
Although here is a another fact sheet that actually uses facts:
http://www.mediaradar.org/media_fact_sheet.php
Further, it currently costs around $1.6 Billion dollars a year, and no one knows exactly where that money goes. The entire program has almost no oversight.
Anonymous said...
"Further, it currently costs around $1.6 Billion dollars a year, and no one knows exactly where that money goes. The entire program has almost no oversight."
Aug 18, 2011 12:59:00 PM
VAWA has violated section 1 of the fourteenth amendment to The U.S. Constitution.
14th Amendment
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv
Anon,
The only problem with that section, is that VAWA is federal legislation, not state. So it doesn't actually violate the 14th, as that deals with the individual states making laws. It doesn't specifically prohibit the Federal government from doing the same.
Gender neutralizing is a stupid action of feminists and it is a better joke. On the other hand gender neutralizing can only deform the sexuality and this will cause to extinct cultures and nationalities. However cultures which are accepting gender specifications will confirm their persistence while the people who are following feminism become extinct.
Then both have violated the U.S. Constitution and have eroded men's rights. This is intolerable. It means both the Federal Government and state government HAVE been conducting a war on/against men and boys. VAWA is another tool they have utilized to their own ends to conduct their campaigns against us. They can try to deny this but, the truth is in thier actions and their deeds. Both are "legal" and illegal. They are even subversive and acts of sedition against males.
There are a few good comments here, that gender neutralization often is harmful and stupid. In this case though, it has certain value. If VAWA should not be scrapped totally, unceremoniously, at least it should be gender neutral.
Is it gender neutral that the physically stronger party in a fight should be arrested? Maybe the party with the bigger clit/penis should be arrested. That is gender-neutral, too.
Instead, may be the law should maintain due process. Like so many anti-male laws.
Of course, VAWA is like rape and harassment laws. It seems to be designed to arrest the maximum number of men, and to prod "victims" to press charges, even if they are unwilling to do so.
Steven Berkimer: the federal Government can discriminate by gender, religion etc? And can force states to do so? Please explain!! Because I always thought that the name of the law itself should be reasons for its annulment by the supreme court, for unconstitutionality. So will we have a "Violence against Blacks Act" and a "Violence against Musims Act"?
It is also interesting that Title IX (?), the anti-discrimination law, forces Colleges to discriminate against men.
And that there are no laws against grave, often life long harm that women, gender specifically, cause. Like smoking, drinking, over-eating when pregnant.
Gender bias has very little to do with what's wrong with VAWA (except the fact that it forces taxpayers to subsidize misandric political speech).
VAWA is fundamentally wrong -- and open-and-shut unconstitutional, no matter what the courts say -- because it strips men of their civil rights (such as keeping their homes, guns, and children) without them first having been convicted of a crime. That is the basis on which we must fight it.
I'd like to see an "ACLU" for men (since the actual ACLU takes the bad guys' side in cases like this).
I have a better idea: scrap VAWA altogether, since it's unconstitutional...
Post a Comment