Today on Blogcritics
Home » No Means NO to the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA

No Means NO to the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

According to Trudy W. Schuett’s “Betrayal of women – VAWA 2005”:

VAWA 2005 cannot help women much, if at all. Worse, it belittles their anguish, ignores their needs and insults their intelligence. In many cases, it makes a bad situation so much worse, it’s a wonder this kind of approach has lasted a full decade with federal sustenance in partisan politics. At the heart of VAWA is the mistaken presumption that by removing women from their homes, jailing their husbands and indoctrinating their children, this will have a positive impact on intimate partner abuse.

With Father’s Day now a month past, we need remember, again, that father absence seriously harms children, which makes father absence a well-known yet ignored variety of child abuse. According to both federally funded and private research, father absence is strongly correlated with every manner of suffering for their children from increased likelihood of rape and pregnancy to violence and drug abuse. The National Fatherhood Initiative has assembled volumes on the topic. Still, we remain unwilling to recognize the intentional excision of fathers from their children’s lives for what it is. It is domestic violence toward children. It is typically state approved. And legislation like VAWA creates a strong incentive for this variety of child abuse, by glorifying what is essentially archaic victim-feminist propaganda. VAWA is not likely to help either women or children, but it will certainly garner votes for politicians like Nancy Pelosi, who continue to be reelected by wooing votes from entrenched outdated women’s organizations like N.O.W.

Children not allowed access to their own fathers by VAWA are children who will pick father substitutes in the form of everything from extremist religions to gangs to raw self destructive licentiousness. So oppose domestic violence in all its forms; support father presence and help stop child abuse. Just say no to VAWA, where a woman who needs real help raising her children will, instead, as Shuett puts it, “[ be] bombarded with feminist ideology about being ‘empowered’ by her victimhood… helped to apply for an Order of Protection against her presumed offending spouse, [and told] Divorce is the ultimate solution to her problems.”

Edited: LI

Powered by

About carmine

  • http://wisdomandmurder.blogspot.com Lisa McKay

    Under what circumstances is the presence of a physically or emotionally abusive husband/father in a household of benefit to a woman and her children? If the absence of a positive father figure is detrimental to the well-being of a child, certainly the presence of a bad father figure will have an equally negative effect, don’t you think?

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    “abuse” is too far. Would it have been nice to have him around? Not sure. Abuse? No.

    Of course we ran from him …

    If you’re saying custody battles are unfair to men .. just say it.

  • http://wisdomandmurder.blogspot.com Lisa McKay

    I’ll take your last sentence another step further, Temple, because I realize that there is a movement afoot trying to make custody fairer to fathers (which I support in principle)and say that an abusive father doesn’t deserve to have custody of or access to his children. Providing sperm does not a father make…

  • Sister Ray

    I will admit up front that I don’t know all the details of the VAWA. But just by its name, I’m wary of all its ramifications because it sounds like one of those things that nobody wants to question. Who wants to be “for” violence against women? Sort of like laws named after a particular crime victim. If you express any doubts, it’s like you’re adding to the suffering.
    I agree that fatherlessness (however it’s caused) is a real problem in America today. It’s a cold hard fact that children who live without a father in the house are more vulnerable to molesters. Some of them put on a “nice guy” act and pretend they just want to be a father figure to a lonely kid, but they have evil intentions.
    I’m not saying that anyone should stay in an abusive relationship. Just warning that you have to be extra extra careful of who’s around your children nowadays.

  • http://www.corante.com/mooreslore Dana Blankenhorn

    More blame the victim garbage. A lot of fathers aren’t with their children because they are CRAP. They are crap as human beings, absolute human feces.

    That’s where you ought to be focusing your attention, not the victims taken out of a horrible situation (even if placed into one marginally less-so).

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    Great points, SR…

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com gonzo marx

    what does being extra careful have to do with restraining orders against serial abuser?

    if we are talking custody fights, that’s one Issue…when we are talking about restraining orders against scumbags that abuse women and kids…no sympathy..

    trash that would do harm to women and children should be tossed feet first into the wood chipper

    nuff said?

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “trash that would do harm to women and children should be tossed feet first into the wood chipper”

    Oftentimes, it is a matter of he said/she said. You’d toss a fellow human being into a human shredder (just like the late Uday Hussein) over an accusation that may be baseless?

  • Dave

    “Still, we remain unwilling to recognize the intentional excision of fathers from their children’s lives for what it is. It is domestic violence toward children.”

    Bull. Don’t even try to subvert the term “domestic violence” here.

    If a mother shows up at a shelter bloodied and battered, she had damned well better be counseled to get away from the scumbag who did it.

  • Dave

    And wtf is up with the “No means NO” subject line? That’s totally inappropriate.

  • carmine

    If a woman wants to be assured of winning child custody and all the benefits therin, her wisest option is to accuse the father of abuse. False abuse allegations can be made by women, by and large, without any fear of legal sanction. As abuse becomes defined more and more vaguely, virtually anything becomes abuse if the “victim” believes or pretends to believe it is abuse. Yes, No means NO to VAWA until some aspects of this legislation are cleaned up considerably. As of now VAWA is a policy that leads and has led to systematic child abuse. Father absence IS child abuse.

  • carmine

    See ifeminist Wendy McElroy’s excellent article on the VAWA: http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0705/0705vawa.htm

  • Sister Ray

    Gonzo Marx, I was talking about children in female-headed households being vulnerable to abuse from someone besides their biological father. Mom’s new boyfriend could just as likely be abusive as a biological father. Maybe more likely if you don’t know the guy that well.

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com gonzo marx

    i understand that, nd the points carmine was making..

    read what i wrote please

    what YOU two don’t seem to get is that all that is being doen to protect the women and children

    are errors made?..of course

    are they worth it if they spare one woman or child abuse?

    yes

    is that clear enough?

    Excelsior!

  • Sister Ray

    Men’s and women’s lives have been ruined by false allegations of child abuse. Remember the McMartin preschool case in the 1980s?
    Sometimes we respond before all the facts are in. A few years ago there were reports that wife-beating increased on Super Bowl Sunday. They said women’s visits to emergency rooms went up because men got testosterone-crazed watching the game. There were all kinds of warnings to women and the NFL made public-service announcements.
    It turned out to be flat not true. The emergency-room scenario was based on faulty data. But people got paranoid before they knew the facts.

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com gonzo marx

    i understand your point, and postulated exactly that in my earlier comments..

    i do NOT want to see any false allegations enforced…

    that being said..i would rather see the System err on the side of caution, protecting those women and children, than the many cases we see regularily of an abusive male violating a restraining order and causing harm to the unprotected women and kids

    which is worse to you…an instance where a father has been wrongly accused, and thus needs to have only closely supervised visitation…or a case where a real abuser has the chance to do so over and over again?

    i will always side with the defenseless women and kids…and while i would want the system to work better for all concerned…protecting innocents from abuse is the top priority, bar none

    Excelsior!

  • Dave

    I’m sorry, but I don’t trust anything “men’s rights activists” claim. I’ve seen examples of their intellectual dishonesty too many times.

    For that matter, McElroy’s claim of being a feminist is nonsense as well.

    Alas, A Blog has a bit on her.

  • Sister Ray

    Gonzo, I have an honest question in which I’m not trying to be a smart-ass.
    How does VAWA apply when a woman abuses children? Can the man get any help in getting his children away from her?

  • carmine

    I read the “Alas, A Blog” bit. That is exactly the sort of fallacious silliness I would, Alas, have expected. When ad hominem is raised to the level of research and nick picking elevated to insight you know a movement is falling into despair. Alas, that is exactly the sort of feminism declared dead but a few years back and it is easy to see why. Thank you McElroy, you are a voice of reason to help feminism pull forward While the great Titanic “gender feminism” slowly, tragically, sinks. Many lives will have been lost in this wreck too.

  • Dave

    So McElroy and her ilk’s penchant for dishonest nonsense that’s easily debunked and “nitpicked” is what passes for serious research in your eyes?

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com gonzo marx

    Sister Ray,

    there are other , legal , avenues for that type of abuse..

    but if you check the statistics, the mumerical difference is so vast that the type of instituted guidelines for such don’t seem to be warranted..

    add to this the fact that even in those instances, it is much easier for the male spouse to physically stop the female from such actions…as opposed to the reverse

    as i stated previously..custody battles and false allegations are one thing..and a battle fought in the legal system…

    but in NO way should anything be done to make abuse of women and children one iota easier or more prevalent

    any decent Father will understand this, and while i can readily agree there are times when this system penalizes a good father over a selfish mother…i still stand by that statement that i would rather see this happen many times than a single instance of a woman or child suffer abuse or killed

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    Gonzo, you’re overlooking the fact that even allegations of child abuse can ruin a man’s career.

    This is one of the most dicey areas of law and one of the areas I would advocate, as a journalist, that records be sealed until the trial is complete.

    Then the guilty will be found so in the eyes of the law and in the public eye and the innocent will be found so – in the law and in the public eye.

    In my first job, during the interview process, this was one of the questions asked of me: If you heard that a man or woman was accused of child abuse, how would you handle it?

  • carmine

    Dave,
    “nitpicked” quod erat demonstrandum

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com gonzo marx

    Temple..i am all for keeping those records sealed until the trial is completed…

    but then again, i think that all family court matters should be sealed

    my whole point is to err on the side of caution when it comes to women and kids..NOT that any problems within the system shoudl not be corrected

    but the current system has come a long way in keeping women and kids protected…

    start from there, and work out the rest..

    nuff said?

    Excelsior!

  • Sister Ray

    Unfounded allegations can put people in prison as well as ruin their careers.

    Gonzo, I will stipulate that men, overall, commit more violence than women. I am against violence to women and children. I *am* a women and I used to be a child.

    I think the original poster was saying that a side effect of divorce and single parenthood is that children are at greater risk of abuse. Families are not just a husband and wife and their biological children anymore. There’s divorce, stepfamilies, live-in partners, dates, etc. Children are every bit as vulnerable to abuse by a custodial parent’s partner as by their biological parents. Maybe more so. A local newspaper looked at shaken-baby cases over a period of time and found that most were commited by the mother’s partner who was not the biological father of the child.

    A live-in boyfriend can beat a woman and children just as easily as a husband can. And then he can skip out the door. He doesn’t have to worry about custody or child support. They’re not his kids.

  • Dave

    Actually I didn’t even consciously notice the typo and was just using the quotes to indicate I was using your term.

    If I had noticed and wanted to be obnoxious, I would have been a proper grammar troll and written “nick picking [sic]”…

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com gonzo marx

    again, your point?

    yes..bad things happen

    again, i am not falling for the straw man fallacies, nor kowtowing to any Agenda

    again, i stand on the side of protecting women and kids

    again, i will grant that the System is NOT perfect, but that the Laws and Regulations in Question (WAVA, restraining orders, etc) are the best we have at the moment to protect those women and children

    again, i ain’t falling for any “defense of marriage” stuff…there should NOT be any kind of impediment to allowing an abused woman to remove herself from her abuser…even more so when there are children involved..

    you keep harping on mom’s new boyfrined etc…

    please cite the studies showing that these numbers of abuse cases are greater than that of parents or blood relatives..

    from all i have seen, the “uncle ernie” syndrome is far more prevalent that any of the examples you speak of (tho they DO happen..i do not deny that)

    so, if you wish to change and /or repair the System in place…what are yoru suggestions?

    i am all for that discussion

    i am totally against removing the mechanisms for protecting women and kids

    clear enough?

    Excelsior!

  • http://wisdomandmurder.blogspot.com Lisa McKay

    While there is no question that children raised in fatherless households are at risk for a variety of things, I still fail to see where the presence in the home of an abusive father is the antidote to any of those things, which is what the poster appears to be arguing. If I am misinterpreting you, James, please clarify your position.

  • Dave

    @Sister Ray

    “I think the original poster was saying that a side effect of divorce and single parenthood is that children are at greater risk of abuse.”

    Greater risk of abuse than what? Than a child from a happy, loving family? Obviously that’s true. But why would a woman from such a family flee to an abuse shelter in the first place?

    Some women make bad choices, yes, and a woman who divorces an abuser may go on to partner up with another man who may be even worse, especially to a kid who’s not his flesh and blood. Does that mean she should have stuck with the original husband?

    NO!

    These women need counseling, and yes, that scary word, “empowerment” so they don’t fall into another abusive relationship. Whether that means they remain single or look for a responsible partner doesn’t matter.

    Stepdads CAN be just as loving as biological fathers, unless you believe they’re genetically programmed to dislike other men’s children and can’t overcome that.

  • Sister Ray

    Again I admit I don’t know all the details of VAWA. I don’t know how it makes it easier to leave an abusive husband than it was before VAWA was passed. I’m not saying that to be sarcastic. I really don’t know.

    For the record, I am against abusive marriages. Husbands who abuse their wives are bad.

    I brought up “mom’s new boyfriend” because you don’t have to be married to a woman to be abusive to her. Women with or without kids can be terrorized by men who are not their husbands. Since, generally, divorced women have primary custody, the children are with her which means they would be at risk from the abusive boyfriend too.

    And – since you asked – I think society would benefit if more people waited to get to know the other person better before marrying or, especially, having a child with that person. Have safe sex.

    How to accomplish all this, I don’t know.

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com gonzo marx

    Sister Ray…

    fair enough on most counts..

    glad to hear you admit to not knowing…

    might i suggest you check it out a bit more before criticizing a program that has helped quite a few folks to leave an abusive partner behind, and provides protection against such abuses?

    gnosis > dogma

    nuff said?

    Excelsior!

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    Most instances of sexual abuse occur inside the home. And a majority of these are by men who are NOT the father of the child.

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com gonzo marx

    source please RJ?..and does it break it down to “boyfriend/stepdad” and relatives other than the father (uncle ernie) and trusted family friends?

    that would be some good info

    liek i said, the system is far from perfect, but 1000 times better than letting a single abuser continue to hurt women and kids

    Excelsior!

  • carmine

    Lisa,
    Until false allegations of abuse are regularly punished by law, much of the alleged domestic abuse that occurs is actually a precurssor to unilateral divorce. To win the children and the house one parent always does better if the other is thrown out of the house. This creates the incentive for child abuse, since the children now see the parent making the strategic allegations saying horrendous and all too often exageratted if not entirely untrue things about the other parent, which leads to PAS, parental alienation syndrome. And to be sure mothers are primarily the ones who make these strategic allegations of domestic abuse. When everything is tagged abuse, then nothing is abuse and the instances where women AND MEN (who are far more often shot and stabbed by women then we think), are actually abused lose the credibility they should have. Also, a family with two parents even two quarrelling parents tends to raise healthier happier kids than single parent families wracked by the legal malignancy of divorce and child-custody warfare. Stay married if you at all can, if you really love your kids.

  • http://wisdomandmurder.blogspot.com Lisa McKay

    But you’re making a case against alleged abuse, James. Do you not feel that actual abuse exists? If it does exist, do you still feel that women should stick it out for the sake of the kids? If that’s your position, I strongly disagree. From where do you draw your statistics about the proportion of abuse charges which are false?

  • Dave B

    To all:

    A few comments here. One – the source that you can all take a good look at is Father Facts 4th edition. This shows that children are at greater risk for abuse in homes where the biological father is not present.

    Two – One thing that I am VERY saddened to see in this discussion is the complete lack of understanding of a CHILD’S point of view.

    One day – whether mom likes it or not – that child is going to ask about his father. He or she is going to want to know him (scumbag or not) and if there is not SOME caring and understanding to that FATHER NEED of the child, that child will likely grow up abusing women, doing drugs, depressed, etc. (again, see Father Facts).

    Am I advocating a “no holds barred” full access custody deal? NO. Visitation? NO! I am telling all those who would “err on the side of caution” that you are in fact NOT. You are guaranteeing that these kids will grow up missing a realtionship with their fathers thereby statistically putting them at MUCH greater risk for all kinds of terrible behavior (irrespective of economic, educational levels or any racial bias).

    Is this worth protecting one woman and child? Not when that child will grow up with a rage inside his heart that his father wasn’t there and act out more violence!! You are putting the child more at risk to repeat the cycle.

    Again, please look at this through the eyes of a child – they are not grown up enough to understand the WHYS of divorce/abuse/etc. They just know they need love and attention from their PARENTS. If one (the father in this case) is NOT capable of doing so here’s MY personal solution:

    1. Yes, there needs to be a temporary removal of women/children in situations of danger.
    2. There needs to ALWAYS be recourse to get dad BACK in the picture if he follows a prescribed program to HEAL whatever is causing abusive behavior. In the majority of cases, this is not a question of “he is evil” and more a question of how he has learned to express his anger/frustration/etc. It is a cycle that needs to be broken in his life and the removal of his children is a VERY good motivator!
    3. That said, the end goal needs to be SOME connection with dad. Maybe it can only be by phone. Maybe it has to be through SCREENED letters.

    But single moms need to take responsibility for their children’s need for a father and stop blaming dad for everything bad that’s happened in their lives. That’s the real tragedy here. By throwing dad out, laws like this GUARANTEE that kids will grow up more at risk for abuse, neglect, drug use, suicide, depression, failing in school, etc.

    We need laws that address CHILDREN’S needs not the agendas of angry women.

  • carmine

    Lisa,
    Jeffery Leving’s book is a good place to start but there are loads of sources to document the incentive and the reality for false abuse allegations in divorce, for example
    http://www.dadsrights.org/false_allegations_of_abuse.php.
    RADAR is also a good source though admittedly biased.
    If there is ongoing dangerous abuse going either from mom to dad or dad to mom, certainly no sane person would recommend staying around until someone dies. But so-called emotional abuse runs the gammut from a frown to actual threats of violence and death.

  • http://wisdomandmurder.blogspot.com Lisa McKay

    I checked out the link, James, and it’s clearly a father’s rights page – I guess I was hoping for some unbiased statistics, rather than a blanket statement that some people abuse the legal system. I’m afraid I’m not going to take the word of people who feel as though they’ve been screwed over by said system as gospel truth.

    As for Dave B’s assertion that people need to look at this issue from a child’s perspective: I can think of few things that would terrify a child more than watching Dad threaten to hit Mom, or carrying out that act. If you are claiming that a child is better off with such a father in his or her life, we are simply going to have to disagree on that point. It is far better for a child to see that Mom has the self-respect and backbone to protect both herself and her child from such abuse. The women who stay in such situations do their children no favors. Fathers who recognize that their children have a need for fathering need to be responsible for their own behavior.

  • Dave B

    Hi Lisa –

    I agree on all of your points. I would never advocate having a child stay in and be exposed to an abusive situation (see point #1 in my personal solution). However, we can’t simply say that we’ve solved the problem once abusive dad is removed. The child MAY see that mom – as you put it – has a backbone. But my thought is that they will ALSO see the huge gap left in their lives by the absence of dad.

    It’s not surprising that this dichotomy exists because of the simple truth (related to ALL of this discussion): Kids suffer with abuse AND they suffer without their father. So what’s one to do when dad is critical to a child’s well being but is abusive?

    Again to reiterate: we need to protect children (and women!) from experiencing that type of behavior by removing them from the home. That’s the immediate. However, I think we’re fooling ourselves if we think that removal is the magic solution.

    We still need to get dad back involved with his children on the right and RESPONSABLE (a big AMEN to that last line in your post Lisa) terms that are going to make a positive impact on the child’s need for a connection with his/her dad.

    That’s the distinction I’m trying to make. Yes, get the mother and children into a safe place. Yes, encourage them to avoid that situation in the future and work on strengthening mom’s resolve to NOT go back into that relationship IN THE SAME WAY which would only encourage the repetition of the abuse cycle.

    BUT we also need to prepare the mother by showing her that her child is going to NEED their dad’s involvement at some level and probably ask many questions about it. The child will yearn for that and we need to create healthy situations where that can happen.

    And this is where we need to work on policy – creating systems that encourage healing and elimination of abuse with an incentive program tied to involvement with children. I.e., for the first year, kids can only get screened letters. Then phone calls for the 2nd year (monitored? maybe). Then at the end of the 3rd year if there are, say, 3 unbaised medical/psychological opinions/evaluations of a true change in behavior could the father visit.

    Maybe this is too harsh – it certainly is too vague – but this is the direction we should be heading. Trying to figure out how much involvement the father can have – working with dad to make that happen – and creating resources for the children to make the most of any contact with dad.

    Now, if the father isn’t interested in reforming himself or seeing his kids, that’s another story. Unfortunately, there are too many of those kinds of dads and then we do need to focus totally on healing the deep wound that was left by his abuse AND absence.

    I hope that I’ve made the nuances a little clearer in what I was trying to say.

  • http://wisdomandmurder.blogspot.com Lisa McKay

    That’s much clearer, Dave, and I can’t disagree with anything you’ve said. Certainly the willingness of both partners to work on correcting the situation is necessary, or there won’t be much success. Certainly removal from the home isn’t the ultimate solution, and I think the difficult part here is to get all parties concerned on the same page.

  • Sister Ray

    If I understand right, VAWA makes it easier for a woman to *divorce an abusive husband.* That’s a more specific thing than *leaving an abusive partner.*

    Both of which should be done. Abuse is wrong.

    Maybe I’m way wrong and naive, but I honestly thought that a man who was willing to marry rather than cohabitate and who only procreates within a marriage might be less likely to be abusive than a man who does not make those commitments.

    In other words, it’s less risky to find a guy who’s willing to marry you and then have children. He might turn out to be a scumbag anyway, in which case the woman should leave.

    Maybe there are secular, practical reasons to encourage people to have their children within a marriage.

  • Dave

    I have real doubts as to whether abusers can ever change. They often become contrite after an episode of violence, but that doesn’t last. So I’m therefore skeptical about any attempts to bring them back into their family’s lives.

    Battered individuals similarly fall into a pattern of forgiveness–“Oh, he’s not bad all the time, just when he’s drinking/tired from a hard day’s work/provoked–and I can help him change by being good.” I don’t buy it. The abuser should never be given another chance to hurt them again.

    I can believe an abuser may sincerely feel he’s changed and may be earnestly sorry over their actions. But do I think they’ll fall back into their old patterns given the chance? Absolutely. Once you cross the line you forfeit any hope of being trusted again.

    Dave (from upthread…not Dave B)

  • Sister Ray

    We’ve got several different, discrete, questions going here:

    *How to prevent abuse and what to do with the offenders.

    *How to ensure the family court system is as fair to every member of the family as possible.

    *How to help more children grow up in stable, happy homes.

    Tall orders, every one.

  • http://www.political-football.com/ BB

    We live in a world where politics of the pendulum swings according to the wims of political correctness. We just swing from one extreme to another.

    When will we find a balance in policy? And when did moderatism become such a dirty word?

    Words like common sense, decency, fairness, wisdom. Words gone the way of the dinosaur.

  • Dave B

    To Dave:

    Although I hear your doubts, I would offer the opinion that people can change.

    Really, the only two constants in this whole debate about abuse and child well-being is that abuse is bad but children need their fathers.

    And that need is the only pure behavior – a child’s natural need for his/her father that will never change.

    By excluding the father from the family, you are guaranteeing that the child is more at risk for destructive behaviors. Period.

    And again, the systems we need to put in place should do their best to remove children from abusive situations while giving the opportunity for dads to have SOME involvement with their children.

    On one final note – it would seem that those who are involved in this debate (nationally, not just on this blog) are those who are passionate about this issue. That’s obvious and natural. However, it is my guess that these same individuals are passionate about it because they have gone through an abusive situation or have been touched by abuse in some way.

    That automatically puts THEM at risk to looking at this issue too narrowly which is probably why we have a lot of babies being thrown out with the bathwater.

    People CAN change behavior (look at heroin addicts). And I would even venture to say that the abusive cycle is very much like the cycle of addiction. There is a REASON why these people are abusive and therefore there is a possibility of reform and healing.

    The people who don’t believe that shouldn’t be making policy that is affecting human relationships because that pessimism will flow right into the systems that are created and ruin lives!

  • Maynard

    Hoo boy. What you forget is that a heroin addict never recovers, he dies a junky. He may have stopped using, but he never heals from the spike.

    And for all of your protesting that those wanting to protect the vitims of abuse may have been abused themselves, it look slike those wantin gto cut back on protections for the victims are all disgruntled dads who feel like they were shafted by the system. I wonder how many of them were abusers, don’t think they did anything wrong, and can quote scripture to justify their crimes.

    You want ruined lives, each and every one of those women and kids have been scarred for life, and many of those dads did it. And they just bitch about how unfair it is to them, when they should be in jail or a mental hospital, not having sunday visitation.

  • http://wisdomandmurder.blogspot.com Lisa McKay

    By excluding the father from the family, you are guaranteeing that the child is more at risk for destructive behaviors. Period.

    Again, I am still waiting for someone to point me toward some actual evidence that shows that children who have had an abusive father removed from the home are at greater risk had he not been removed. This really doesn’t sound logical to me at all. I would guess that children raised in abusive families are equally at risk for destructive behaviors – while children may have a need for a father, they really don’t have a need for a father that whacks mom and kids around when he gets drunk or angry.

  • carmine

    This comes from a leading fathers organization to demonstrate what is at stake regarding VAWA, Kevin also includes the names of the University Researchers opposed to the continuation of VAWA. I include letter precisely as I received it:

    On July 19, 2005, in Washington, DC, there is chance that the VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) is up for renewal. The US Senate may renew it without considering the fact that men are victims, too.

    Therefore, we ask you to do one of two or three things or all of them.

    1. Call Arlen Spector’s Washington’s office. 202/224-4254

    2. Fax Arlen Spector’s Washington’s office. 202/228-1229

    3. Email Arlen Spector’s Washington’s office.

    Here are the two main points to raise.

    1. Make the bill gender neutral.

    2. Allow the opposing side rebuttal time at next week’s hearing.

    If he cannot do the above two items, then ask that the bill die in committee.

    Joseph Biden Wants to Stack the VAWA Hearing;
    We Say, “No Way Jose!”

    Two persons who have each spent over three decades researching family violence:
    are * Murray Straus, Ph.D., founder of the University of New Hampshire Family Research Laboratory and * Richard Gelles, Ph.D., Dean of the School of Social Policy & Practice at the University of Pennsylvania

    These are the people who should be testifying on July 19, not the advocates who knowingly slant the truth and discriminate against needy DV victims.

    Kevin Sheahen
    President
    Greater Pittsburgh Chapter of National Congress for Fathers and Children
    pghdads@aol.com

  • Mark Ruffolo
  • Jeff

    Just because I have a fight with my wife and punch her in the face and knock out her teeth out, does not mean I shouldn’t have custody of my children.

    Regards,

    Jeff

  • loving grandmother

    I find this article very educational.

    Restraining orders are too easy to get. They are nothing more then tactics used to remove fathers from their children. A strategy used for sole custody. There needs to be proof given before a judge signs an order. They are handed out like candy.

    VAWA has overstepped their usefulness. It no longer protects, it deviates from it’s original purpose.

    Men are also victims. Time to step out of the dark ages and make this a men’s issue. Change this bias peice of garbage to incude protecting men and their children.

    Children are paying a high price on what women want.

  • http://wisdomandmurder.blogspot.com Lisa McKay

    Restraining orders are too easy to get. They are nothing more then tactics used to remove fathers from their children.

    I suppose women who have been killed by husbands/boyfriends who were in violation of a restraining order just had it coming, right?

    While I’m sure that the family court system is in need of some reforms, the notion that all women in a divorce action are simply out to “get” the man is just flat-out wrong. Also, please consider that most people only hear one side of a divorce story or the other. In general, the only two people who truly know the truth about what goes on inside a marriage are the man and woman involved.

  • Maynard

    protect men? right. how many men have been hospitalized for “falling down the stairs”, or been raped by their wives or kids? fucking pathetic. put your agenda aside and look out for the kids, protect the women, then deal with the fact that daddy didn’t get everything he wants. check the link above, and see just how many deadbeat dads there are. and that’s not even counting those that are abusive. does that mean the system is perfect?,no. does that mean it can’t be better? no.

    does that mean scrap things that protect the helpless? no.

  • Loving Grandmother

    Well, if women are not violent, why are there so many womens prisons? Why do so many women, abuse, neglect and kill their own children? PMS? Why are more men coming forward with their claims of violence by women?

    You need to look beyond your personal experiences and read the writing on the wall.

    In my local papaer alone, there is articles everyday about men who have been attacked by women and sent to the hospital.

    And as far as putting children first, everyday in, in every way.

  • Maynard

    yeah, right. OK, now try looking at the objective statistics comparing wome’s violent crimes to men. Compare the number in prisom population for violent crimes. Compare the numbers for women convicted of abusing their children to that of men.

    when you come back to reality and stop whoring out to an ideological agenda, we can talk.

  • Loving Grandmother

    Enjoy the read, I might also add, if you did the research, you would find domestic violence is committed by both genders, therefore, both genders should have protection under the law.

    Would have posted earlier, but I was babysitting my wonderful grandchildren.

    DHHS and BJS Studies of Child Abuse and Neglect

    Who abuses children? That question is answered with the hard data contained in the Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS-3) from the US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and also from data in a report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) entitled “Child Victimizers and Their Victims”. The DHHS and BJS reports reveal some startling conclusions about who really commits child abuse.

    The DHHS report contains clear and undeniable evidence that the majority of child abuse is committed by mothers, not fathers. This runs counter to the standard mainstream-media depiction of child abusers as being almost exclusively male.

    You can get a free copy of the report by calling 1-800-394-3366. Examine the data and you will come to the same conclusion the Department of Health and Human Services did- that mothers commit the majority of child abuse, not fathers.

    The report includes the following items:

    Table 5-3 shows that children in mother-only households are almost 4 times more likely to be fatally abused [read: murdered] than children in father-only households.

    Table 5-4 shows that children in mother-only households are 40% more likely to be sexually abused than children in father-only households.

    Table 6-4 shows that females are 78% of the perpetrators of fatal child abuse [read: child murder], 81% of natural parents who seriously abuse their children, 72% of natural parents who moderately abuse their children, and 65% of natural parents who are inferred to have abused their children.

    Table 6-3 shows that natural mothers are the perpetrators of 93% of physical neglect, 86% of educational neglect, 78% of emotional neglect, 60% of physical abuse, and 55% of emotional abuse.

    Table 6-3 also shows when the perpetrator is a non-natural parent, that males [read: non-biological fathers] are the perpetrators of 90% of physical abuse, 97% of sexual abuse, 74% of emotional abuse, and 82% of educational neglect.

    Table 5-2 shows that children are 20 times more likely to be fatally abused, 22 times more likely to be seriously abused, 20 times more likely to be moderately abused, and 18 times more likely to be sexually abused in households earning less than $15,000 per year [read: father-absent households] than in households earning more than $30,000 per year [read: father-present households].

    Table 4-2 shows that boys are four times more likely to be fatally abused and 24% more likely to be seriously abused than girls .

    Table 3-4 shows that between 1986 and 1993, as the number of single-mother households increased dramatically, fatal child abuse increased 46% and serious child abuse increased four fold.

    The disclaimer on page 6-21 is typical government-sponsored feminist double-speak:

    “Consistent with the fact that mothers and mother-substitutes tend to be the primary caretakers, 87 percent of all neglected children and 93 percent of physically neglected children suffered their neglect at the hands of female perpetrators.” (Emphasis added)

    The report “Child Victimizers and Their Victims” from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) also details child abuse by women. The study uses data from the 1991 BJS Survey of State Prison Inmates and the FBI’s 1992 Supplementary Homicide Report, which includes data on child murder victims (nearly 3,000 in 1992) and offenders who murdered children.

    The report states that more than twice as many children are murdered as were reported by the NIS-3, in which Table 6-4 shows that 1,500 children were fatally abused in 1993–1,200 by natural parents, and 78% by females. Since the data for the percent of non-natural parents [read: step-fathers and live-in boyfriends] who fatally abused their children is missing, the assumption is made that the percent of perpetrators of fatal abuse by non-natural fathers is an average of Table 6-3 (90%, 97%, 74%, 82%, or 86%).

    28 million children are now growing up in fatherless households, where the rate of fatal child abuse is 0.017 per 1,000 children, so 476 children were fatally abused in mother-only households in 1993. 2.8 million children are now growing up in father-only households where the rate of fatal abuse is .005 per 1,000 children, so 14 children were fatally abused in father-only households in 1993.

    Total Children Killed in 1993 1,500
    Killed By Natural Parents 1,200
    Killed By Non-natural Parents 300
    Killed By Females 1,170
    Killed By Males* 330
    Killed In Mother-only Households 476
    Killed In Father-only Households 14
    *Of the children killed by males:
    14% By Natural Fathers: 37
    86% By Non-natural Fathers: 227
    20% By ‘others': 66

    According to the government’s own figures, females kill 31 times as many children as natural fathers.
    The conclusion is unavoidable: Females, NOT males, commit the vast majority of child abuse, regardless of how the media ignores the figures.

    This is just one of my sources on the subject. And anyone who can publicly call someone else a whore for having another opinion/view, apparently has some mental deficienties.

  • carmine

    Thanks Loving Grandmother, honestly thanks.
    Jim

  • Loving Grandmother

    Your Welcome.

    Facts need to be presented properly. Research says it all. I have so many other resources, but will not waste my time on some people who can read beyond their nose.

    I appreciate the thumbs up!

  • http://www.petitiononline.com/FixVAWA/petition.html JH

    Sign the petition to make the VAWA gender-neutral.

  • http://capwiz.com/sicminc/issues/alert/?alertid=7829836&type=CO Bill

    Cut Taxpayer Funding of Radical Feminist Groups:

    Tell Congress to Amend or Reject VAWA

    here

    Hat tip to RightMarch.com: over 15,000 messages to Congress sent so far!

  • http://gonzo-marx.blogspot.com/ gonzo marx

    cut federal funding to churches…

    tax the bastards

    nuff said?

    Excelsior!

  • Someone who knows

    Domestic abuse is a very real threat, mostly for women, and too many abusive husbands use their children as a tool to emotionally torture and control, and manipulate their victims. Violence is regarded much too casually in our society, and regardless of how many bras we women burn, men are still allowed to committ such shameful and horrific acts as terrorizing, beating, humiliting, and emotionally torturing their mates with very little punishment.

    An abused woman has to virtually go “under ground” in order to feel safe. There is no escape from an abusive mate, and the braver she behaves, the more the abuser ups the dangerous behavior in order to attempt to remain in control.

    Divorce and the removal form the family unit is a ridiculously benign punishment for murderors in the making, men who have no scrupples of regards for their victimes, for thein children, and for the other family members that are subjected to their behavior.

    Spousal abuse is one of society’s most hideous crimes, and one that is almost accepted as a societal function of daily life. Shame on all the people in power who could to more to wipe society of this aborrent situaion, and shame on anyone who criticizes any person who is making an effort to help us in any way.

    It is because of the feminists that we can have our on money, hold jobs, get divorces, continuse to fight for our rights as human beings. I thank them for having the courage to make things easier for me, and I thank any organiztion that does anything at all, better or worse, to try to save women from this horrible way of life.

  • http://stoppseudoscience.blogspot.com Carmine

    Dear someone who knows,
    In fact you only know your own experience, and though I have genuine sympathy for you, your bias makes you dangerous. Please see this pdf

  • Jye

    The idea that a woman cannot raise a child without a husband in the home is madness because it essentially says that while women may be the one’s who make the babies, the poor pathetic dunderheads are in no way gualified to care for them. Yep, we are all pretty much dumber than dirt.

  • http://stoppseudoscience.blogspot.com/ James D. Carmine

    Jye,
    Ignorance, as Marion Montgomery, referring to George Will writes, is not what you don’t know it’s what you do know that is not true. What you do know that ain’t so is a lot.

  • http://stoppseudoscience.blogspot.com/ James D. Carmine

    OOps I mean Will Rogers!